IRAN

[mburbank]

Somebody cheer me up and convince me we are not going to hit Iran.

Or, alternatively, convince me that if and when we do, it won't lead to a major catastrophe.

It seems to me we are sitting their, ready to make serious war in less than a days notice, and poking them, hoping they'll give us a 'gulf of Tonkin' excuse.

I know I've been on edge about this for quite some time now, but this is what it looks like to me, and it looks fuckin' nuts. Talk me down.

[sspadowsky]

Holy shit, a worthwhile thread. I thought those had taken an extended hiatus from this board.

I would like to think that we're not going to hit Iran. I'd really, really like to think that. As I've said previously, I have not been paying nearly enough attention to the news lately, out of general disgust for the status quo. However, in those times that I do, it seems I'm hearing a lot of similar lingo from the Bush Admin that they were using in the lead-up to the Iraq invasion.

In short, yes. I think we will. I hope that I am wrong.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Maybe I need to catch up on my Seymour Hirsch, but I don't see the same picture you guys do.

Yes, we are "poking" them. However a lot of that is warranted. But the big story this week wasn't how we're building up for invasion, but how we did a complete policy shift towards Iran. We're sitting at a table to discuss Iraq with Iran AND Syria. That may sound tiny, but it's a shift from the take-no-prisoners attitude we've seen from State the past few years.

I think they're going for the speak softly, carry big stick method. Iran has violated the UN on nuclear development, and they're providing weapons to insurgents in Iraq. If anything, we have more grounds to invade them than we did Iraq! We need to let them think that their security could be at risk, otherwise our words have no teeth to them.

However, I too haven't been watching this super closely. Maybe I'm off.

EDIT: Pardon me...HERSH.

[Cosmo Electrolux]

I think the last thing the State want's is another quagmire to get bogged down in. The military is already stretched too thin, and to invade Iran would probably inflame the entire region, somthing that Bush and Co. are probably just smart enough to realize. That, and the fact that our allies are pulling troops out of that area leads me to believe that diplomacy may be the way the Gov. heads with Iran. Well, I'd like to hope, anyway

[sspadowsky]

Does anyone think it would be out of the realm of possibility for them to re-institute a draft if they did decide to invade Iran? I mean, I'm not implying, or predicting, or saying I've heard anything, but it seems to me that it would be nearly impossible to mount any substantial attack on Iran without doing so.

Just thinking out loud, and, knowing this administration, I have a hard time believing that it hasn't at least crossed their minds.

[Preechr]

http://www.perpetualcow.com/gfx/crying-.gif

At the risk of inviting Abcdxxx back into yet another opportunity to call me an uneducated, Jew-hating, liberal moron... What you are witnessing is not the run up to war with Iran. Iran is and has been the major power in the midEast, up until the point at which we invaded and occupied Afghanistan on one side of them and Iraq on the other. The people of Iran are terrified of an American invasion and the subsequent Iraqification of their homeland and the government of Iran is terrified that everybody's going to find out just how mind-numbingly powerless it really is when compared to the Juggernaut of the Western world.

This, in short, is chess. Our model for Iran is similar to what you can witness for yourself in China: A recalcitrant and sometimes petulant government fully taking credit for a burgeoning economy fueled by an ever increasingly connected capitalist core of businesses ( connecting to the economies of the rest of the modern world. ) The model also allows for Iran to remain, as China, the dominant power within the region. Iran's current suggestion for the latter, as well as a hedge against an American attack, is for it to have nukes. I have already said I believe this not only eventually will but also should happen, and I will elaborate on that, once again, as soon as Abcdxxx shows up to crucify me for blasphemy.

Most of what you are hearing about the inevitability of our war with Iran is coming from the news reports, right? Here's how you feel better about that: Completely ignore anybody that talks about Ahminajihad's rhetoric. That fruitcake is about as much the real leader of Iran as I am the leader of I-mockery. Same thing goes for Hugo Chavez. Those idiots simply represent the people find it better for them to have their interests on the front pages of the world's newspapers. In that respect, they represent us as well, if you think about it. The worst thing that could happen at this point would be for everybody to stop hearing about and thus caring about the most important transition in modern history. We really want this in the public eye, and the only way to insure that is to keep it in the news, and you get that by freaking people out with outrageous reports of imminent doom.

Right now, Condomolyzmishqua Rice and everyone else in State are working their asses off to satisfy Iran's need for legitimacy by some other means than it's possession of nuclear weapons. I hope they succeed, but, if not, don't be surprised when they join us at the adult table. That won't mean war, but it will symbolize one more step to the end of war altogether. I'm pretty sure this sort of concept was what John Edwards was talking about when he was quoted on Israel being the biggest impediment to peace last week...

Get out from under the covers and learn to see past the news, Max!

[mburbank]

The news I'm reading doesn't even slightly take into account Ahmenaboujieboos rhetoric. That's just the way they talk over there.

Here are the things that have me worried, in no particular order.

1.) Seymour Hirsh at the New Yorker thinks it's happening, and he has an appaullingly good track record going back almost a generation. He's not known for hysteria, and saber rattling on both sides while worth noticing doesn't make him write stories ever.

2.) Several hughly placed generals have leaked that they would resign if Bush attacked Iran. It's not news that they would feel that way, but it is news that they feel enough in a corner over policy to leak something like that.

3.) If you are using a chess metaphor (as opposed to say candyland) I'll assume that you, like me, don't think W is anything more than a figurehead president. My problem is, I don't think Chenney is a chess playin' man. I think he used to be a poker guy who went semi quietly mad and is now more about shooting hundreds of drugged, fenced in birds for sport. I believe he has a lot of power, I think he got a chip on his shoulder thirty years ago over Vietnam and Watergate which has grown over the years into a full frontal crazy. He may even have begin with the idea of soft words and big sticks, but now he's in hittin' distance and I think he's a loose cannon. Now I hope their is a sane power structure in place that would stop him from going totally naa-naaa, but I think all the years he has spent building up his own offices within the regular power offices are all about making him a guy that when other people throw the breaks on, it takes a while to slow him down. I'm praying for a heart attack.

My brother, a smart guy who works for the FED, was convinced big stick was what we were doing when we massed around Iran, because there was just no damn plus side to invading. For most everybody, things have really changed since then. Most everybody is more realistic now about what we can and cannot accomplish. So it HAS to be big stick, right? 'Cause there;s just no plus side to anything else. These dudes HAVE to look elwhacko to be a credible threat, right? But I think they ARE elwhacko and they don't see any more clearlythen they did four years ago.

[mburbank]

Oh, nice Boo-Hoo pic by the way, you great big A-hole. I thought my computer had turned into a mirror.

[Abcdxxxx]

My take is that any manuevers against Iran would be precise and contained attacks. The exact details as to what was hit and how it was done would be left for the conspiracists. My guess is the fly over will involve Turkey, and/or India. Iran's recourse would be through their various guerilla armies, rather then an outright breakout of war - unless the administration involves Saudi Arabia. I don't think our own administration has a firm policy, they're just mapping out every crazy option available, so they can change their mind every 10 minutes.

[GAsux]

Combine Iran's continued defiance with regards to their nulear ambitions and couple it with what is at least tacit support of the insurgency in Iraq and you've got some serious issues to deal with. If the Iraq situation wasn't already on the table, I think a lot of people would be changing their tune and saying, this is a serious problem we need to deal with. The Iraq situation has damaged credibility not only operationaly in terms of sapping manpower and funding, but also in terms of prestige. Having seen what's gone on in Iraq for the last few years, public support for ANY military intervention ANYWHERE at this point will be a tough road.

And that's unfortunate because I think the Iranian situation, posturing or otherwise, is 194 times more sinister and has broader international implications than anything that happened in Iraq pre-war.

That said, I'm significantly less convinced that anyone in the D.C. area thinks that military intervention is a desirable course of action at this point. It would be niave to think that there is no planning for such eventualitis, but I think it's a long way from folks in decision making seats saying you know, we need to drop some bombs on those people.

As for the draft, this conversation comes up at every sign of conflict, small or large. This administration does not have the political juice in Congress or in public support to pull off draft legislation, even if they wanted to. Conflict in Iran would involve a heavy does of Air Force and Navy assets with minimal involvement from ground troops anyway.

Unlike the Iraq war, there's no reason to try to take and hold ground in Iran. There's no desire to change their government, other than an attempt at regime change which is all nicely handled via airpower. IF a military action became warranted, even if via some kind of Gulf of Tonkin scenario, you can bank on seeing a heavy dose of cruise missiles aimed at every conceivable significant target in Iran.

My thoughts, anyway.


P.S., no need to overfly Turkey, as the Turks might be reluctant to approve anyway. There's a reason we moved all our assets including C2 stuff into Bahrian, Qatar, Oman, etc and only half of it was because of an effort to reduce the footprint in Saudi Arabia. It's a quick hop across the Gulf with nothing in between. Not to mention easy Naval access.

[Preechr]

I don't think our own administration has a firm policy, they're just mapping out every crazy option available, so they can change their mind every 10 minutes.

Max and Abcdxxx finally agree on something!

There is a plan for Iran, and it's not a war plan. Think about it: If our plan from the get go was to eventually invade Iran, would we have done up to this point what we actually did do? When we invaded Iraq, we sure as hell didn't give them four years to dig in and build defenses. Sure, Saddam had quite a while between Desert Storms 1 and 2 to think about it, but it's pretty obvious that he never really considered we'd jump.

Iran, on the other hand, is feeling very intimidated by now. It knows whatever defense to an American attack it might mount won't matter in the end, which threatens its already tenuous totalitarian hold on it's citizens. Iranian citizens know for a fact how quickly Iraq's regime fell, and their experience with the Iran/Iraq stalemate proves logically that their own government would surely meet the same fate within a few days of our Bradleys crossing the border. No matter how their government might try to lie about this possible future, the people of Iran aren't going to buy it. They know.

They also know what happened to the people of Iraq once America's military forces muffed the process of waging peace. They probably know better than us just how badly our nation-building skills aren't up to the task of fixing what we broke. Iranians have family and friends in Iraq. They get their newspapers and news reports. They read the Iraqi blogs and whatnot. As much as many, maybe the majority, of the citizens of Iran would rather have a freer style of government, they sure as hell don't want to go through the meat-grinder of American occupation to get it.

All that being said, and in keeping with my previous analogy to China, don't look for a grass-roots revolution as the solution to our issues with Iran...

Let's discuss the government of Iran. As I previously stated, Ahminajihad is decidedly NOT the leader of that country's government. He's much more like their giant foam #1 finger. Iran is run by a massive, theocratic bureaucracy, mob-like in many respects, but with no real single leader. Personally, I find it useful to compare it to the Democrat Party here in the US, but I don't expect you guys to follow me there... It's an elusive pseudo-structure of factions and loose understandings, and it's all about attaining and retaining political power.

As such, it's actually very close to being a modern Democratic society... Throw in real elections, and run them through the WTO's program for sad little nation-states that need a little guidance, and most of our problems with them are solved. I've heard as much as I need to from right-wing ideologues screaming about the outrage of some lily-livered appeasement approach being on the table when Ahminajihad keeps spouting off about the elimination of Israel... Back to my comparison to China: just as the mainland
grows into it's new Capitalist shoes and has less impulsive need to resent America's two China policy regarding Taiwan, so will Iran and the rest of the middle east slowly forget about the specter of the Zionist Entity as the concepts of political and social freedom begin to establish themselves in their respective regressive societies.

Make no mistake; our current diplomatic battles with Iran serves as a proxy-war with the governments of Syria, Saudi and Egypt, too. Saddam was the main bad-actor in the play, and we graciously removed him with no cost whatsoever to his neighbors. By doing so, we did them all a huge favor. They all now have the opportunity for graceful transitions, and they will all take them to save the long-held balance of power in the neighborhood.

Now, enough about what they think. You guys seem more worried about what our side is thinking, anyways, right? Alright, let's get to that...

I read as much as I can of what the decision makers in our government are reading, which is why I feel about the issue as I've stated above. I think I've painted an accurate picture of the situation "on the ground" as I can in a nut-shell format here, and I believe that most of the bureaucrats in our own regime share this perspective. Assuming that's the case, what possible good would war do in this situation? Let's see if we can bolster this a bit, Ok?

Recently, we've announced that Iran has been linked to high-tech new IED material that's responsible for some actual deaths of some actual Americans... surely that's cause for military response, right? Have we attacked yet? Why not? We've also captured many actual Iranians fighting among the insurgency in Iraq... Again, a perfect opportunity to open up a can of Whup-Ass... yet, still no attack... Hmm.... Whomever is holding the reigns on this imminent invasion is obviously waiting on something, and it's obviously not a valid excuse. That we obviously have, and really have had for quite some time now.

Maybe the fact of the matter is that we don't want to do that. Ever. We just aren't going to, pretty much no matter what. This is a fact not because we are scared or that we are pussies or that we have doubts we could pull it off... It's just that we see an obviously better alternative, and we are pursuing that rather than pulling the pin on what would most likely be the biggest grenade the world's ever seen.

Honestly, Max, I'm pretty sure this is just another one of your OMG! threads you've made a habit of throwing out there whenever a ridiculous meme suits your compulsive need to suspect Bush and Cheney to not-so-secretly be really working for the Devil in hopes of transforming the planet we all know and love into a Robo-Cop-slash-Blade-Runner-like version of Hell on Earth, much like Sspad does with crap like his "fear" of an impending draft...

The actual fear you guys have is not that Bush is going to do the absolutely WRONG thing, but that he'll continue to do the right thing. Isn't it? Come ON! You can do it! Admit it... Hell, if you're shy about it, send me a PM and I promise not to tell anybody.

[kahljorn]

i think this thread is hilarious because I'm pretty sure there's been like seven hundred and sixty two threads about invading iran and you three in particular always have really long conversations about it ;9

[Abcdxxxx]

It's true, it's the same fucking conversation over and over. Max wants to know if it's time for him to get hysterical...Kevin tries to talk him down... I admit I have no clue what's gonna happen then give a Zionist tip from me and my banker friends on how we would suck the Muslim blood out of Matza, if we did things like that... and then Preechr just GOES OFF! (into psycobabbleland).

[kahljorn]

more like he goes off into a bottle ;o

[Preechr]

Wow! Abcdxxx is making friends all over the place!

[mburbank]

See? Everybody does what they do best! It's nice.

Preech, without going into depth, I think there's SERIOUS middle ground between my, I think quite reasonable panic attacks, and a position of thinking W is doing the right thing.

And again, I think the biggest flaw in your argument is your notion of competance and calmer heads stearing the ship of state. If that were the case we'd have done a better job in Afghanistan, contained not invaded Iraq, Not walked away from the table in North Korea only to finally go back to it AFTER North Korea got Nuclear weapons and not stuffed everything from FEMA to Prosecutors offices all over the country to the White House janitorial staff with happless frat boy know nothing cronies who couldn't find their own ass with a map, a flashlight and a sherpa guide.

[Preechr]

Of course there have been mistakes made. Lessons learned and more to come of both. This is unchartered territory. Globalization happens in fits and spurts. It's had three large expansions in the last hundred years or so, with big gaps in between. Hopefully, we'll be able to finish the job this time.

I agree that the formation of the DHS was probably the biggest mistake so far. No other single act turned the rest of the world off quicker to this effort than that retarded, self-centered reaction to 9/11. Imagine a small town beset by roving bands of burglars, where the citizens have learned to just deal with the fact that their homes aren't safe when they go to work, and every once and a while their stuff's just gonna disappear. Sure, the cops show up and make a report, but no progress is being made. One night, the police station itself gets robbed, and the reaction of the Chief of Police is to announce the following day his plan to spend half his year's budget on a space-age, high-tech security system for his headquarters.

As for the efforts being made in the middle east, hindsight's always 20/20. Sure, we could have done a better job in Afghanistan if we knew what we know now. We didn't. Every war ever fought could have been prosecuted better. Serious mistakes have always been made, up to and including wars that should never been fought at all. This one is not one of the latter type. This is a brand-new breed of war. This is diplomacy on steroids. The War on Terror is not just focused on Iraq and Afghanistan. Those were just the two worst-off places on the list of countries we needed to work on. Serious efforts are being made using methods other than war in Iran and North Korea (as you know) as well as Egypt, Saudi, Lebanon, Syria, Indonesia... all the places in the middle east that still suffer from limited or no connectedness to the larger world economy. We are also working with Canada on Mexico back here in our hemisphere. Why do you think Bush has taken the extremely unpopular stance on an open southern border? If we send 13-20 million more or less Americanized illegals back to Mexico where there's nothing to do and no money to be made, we will have created a terrorist problem right in our own backyard that would make the middle east look like a group of unruly fourth-graders on a field trip.

Terrorism comes from lack of jobs. Does that make the debate over "outsourcing" a bit clearer? In order for a place like Iraq to attract the Foreign Direct Investment required to create those jobs, however, Saddam would have had to make Iraq a more attractive place to those foreigners with that Direct Investment money. He would have had to make efforts toward economic transparency and political freedom. Nobody's building factories in a country that's just going to steal the profits or where the workers are basically just slaves. Well... Maybe Nike...

You don't have to be a perfect, fully-formed, Christian-based Western Democracy with an American or a European running the show, either. Again, look at China. Ten years ago, the majority of our defense budgeting was based on a future great war with those guys... Now, there our new "Favored Nation" and are in position take our top position on the global economic tree within about ten years. Go China! Sure, they still have a "communist" government... But look at what happened when the USSR tried to make that transition overnight! I'd move a little slowly on that level too, given that example. Their economy is building itself, basically. The government made the wise decision to effectively step out of the way and remove as many roadblocks as it could to progress, though it still likes to take credit for the boom-times... good, solid communist ideology practiced as capitalism, but whatever works...

[kahljorn]

THE ELECTRONIC HERD WILL SORT ThingS OUT

[Abcdxxxx]

Terrorism comes from a lack of jobs? Are you a goofball or what? I mean, what? Osama uses some anti-globalist rhetoric and you buy it hook line and sinker? Muslim extremists just don't have anything better to do, so they form radical seperatist organizations? If it's all about money, then why wouldn't you support sanction instead? Speaking of which, how does the Sunni-Shia issue ever figure into your whole "if you give 'em nuke, tranquility will come" plan? While we're at it, what's the precedence for that working. We gave Arafat guns, a casino to earn revenue, and a plot of land to work independently....how'd that work out? Did they rise to the occasion? Did human rights, and international relations improve? So how about this... you have a lot of theories that you feel strongly about, and you enjoy typing speeches... so why don't you give it all some depth and start to justify what you're saying.

[Preechr]

Terrorism comes from a lack of jobs? Are you a goofball or what? I mean, what? Osama uses some anti-globalist rhetoric and you buy it hook line and sinker? Muslim extremists just don't have anything better to do, so they form radical seperatist organizations? If it's all about money, then why wouldn't you support sanction instead? Speaking of which, how does the Sunni-Shia issue ever figure into your whole "if you give 'em nuke, tranquility will come" plan? While we're at it, what's the precedence for that working. We gave Arafat guns, a casino to earn revenue, and a plot of land to work independently....how'd that work out? Did they rise to the occasion? Did human rights, and international relations improve? So how about this... you have a lot of theories that you feel strongly about, and you enjoy typing speeches... so why don't you give it all some depth and start to justify what you're saying.

Ok, you're right. Terrorism originates in the fact that Arabs are actually dirty, stinky ape-people rather than real humans like you.

You want an example? Pakistan. India. China. Pick one. Pakistan is run by your dirty, stinky ape-Muslims, and they have nukes AND an enemy next door. Have they used them? China has nukes, and Taiwan is still independent. Unplug the Kool-Aid IV. Learn to draw the line between rhetoric and reality. Nobody's drinking the blood of anybody's babies here, and we're past the age of anything productive happening by beating people into submission.

I seem to have forgotten your personal "plan for peace..." What was that again?

[Preechr]

While you're at it, why don't you tell me your version of how "Radical Islam" spread so quickly in, of all places, Indonesia? If it had nothing to do with the retreat of globalization, I'd just love to hear how you might piece that together...

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Preechr, just to understand your point better, are you trying to argue that terrorism is economic in nature?

If that's so, why would men from wealthy families and Phd's strap bombs to themselves, or go live in caves? I do agree, again, if we're on the same page,that there are two kinds of globalization going on here. One is economic and encourages open markets, the other is religious and statist in nature.

[Preechr]

Preechr, just to understand your point better, are you trying to argue that terrorism is economic in nature?

Umm... yeah? Isn't everything?

If that's so, why would men from wealthy families and Phd's strap bombs to themselves, or go live in caves?

Why indeed? It is fact, however, that your average suicide bomber is not an average dumbass. Look at the dumbasses you know personally. Doesn't it jibe? Morons blend in when times get tough. Those that strap on the bombs are generally the same breed as your average American college protester. I'm not saying they're the brightest bulb on the tree, but I will maintain that it takes a bit of a broader understanding of your world to commit to martyrdom.

Apply this train of thought. You went to college. Imagine going back to your hometown and being hit right in the face with the realization that there existed absolutely nothing for you to do from that point on.

American troops call these guys "wallers," as they are usually seen leaning up against something. They hang out in groups and they commiserate amongst themselves. They generally have families, as there's nothing else to do. It's only a matter of time before they start the process of substituting anything, even violence, for their frustration and lack of hope for the future.

I do agree, again, if we're on the same page,that there are two kinds of globalization going on here. One is economic and encourages open markets, the other is religious and statist in nature.

Nope. Different pages. As I said above, it's all about the money. Economics trumps politics every time they meet in battle. It's quite cute to deploy the tactic of religion, but have you ever gotten to know a Muslim immigrant? You live in DC... Go to the grocery store and strike up a conversation. Mysticism and Nationalism are indeed powerful forces, but the history of the West shows us quite clearly that what matters most is most intimately affects our individual wallets. The only road to thinking their history will be any different runs through the swamp of believing they are all that different from us.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Uhhh, ok, I'll respond more later, but the go to a grocery store and talk to a muslim immigrant comment is retarded. Sorry. :(

[Preechr]

Ok, because there's not a hugely disproportionate Arabic immigrant population in the DC area... mmmkay.

I'm retarded. I've been worse, I suppose...

[Abcdxxxx]

The origins of terrorism aren't a lack of opportunity via poverty...contrary to that, history tells us that terrorism actually grew out of the opprtunities and economic growth in the region.

Poverty is merely the device that the Muslim ruling class use to exploit their people into aspiring towards scary seperatist doctrines. So stop believing the hype, little man....and while we're at it, stop presuming what I think, because by assigning such lazy ass stereotypes, it just makes you look like a bigot....and baiting me to call you one is so 2002. Oh, and when you can't debate me, stop asking me what my peace plan is. I've outlined my thoughts for co-existance about a billion times over, and if it doesn't fit the image you've built up in your head for me, then that's really your own problem to lose sleep over.

Okay though....let's talk about Pakistan, and how well those Nukes have worked out for them. Remember, they disbanded the parliament, and junked their constitution.... their government is less then stable, they have a population boom they can't handle, the number of citizens living in poverty is greater then their unemployment rate, half the adult male population can't read and their greatest expenditure continues to be DEFENSE and DEBT. Sounds like these Nukes take you straight to prosperity. Globalization is happiness!

Now you can dispute any of the problems mentioned above, and the question still remains, how has a nuclear capable Pakistan brought peace to the region ? That is what your advertising Iranian Nukes will do for the Mid-East remember? I mean, who are you kidding. Can you argue that the infleunce/threat of radical Islam has diminished in Pakistan since 1998? Check your timeline, and ask yourself if it's just a coincidence that the Taliban, and Al Qaeda upped the level of their attacks shortly after an Islamic dominant nation became nuclear, and then remind yourself why it is they have all found refuge in Islam's one Nuclear capable state. There must be some reason that almost a decade after announcing they got the bomb, Pakistan's government seeks to suppress the education of extremist Islam, right?

Anyway, the whole idea that you're arguing this as an economy generated issue rather then an intolerance and oppression one, is assinine. Is there a fiscal element to these conflicts? Of course. Do they dictate policy? Sometimes. Does that make your Socialist meets pro-Nuke Globalism song and dance any more applicable? Not on this planet, sorry.

[Preechr]

The origins of terrorism aren't a lack of opportunity via poverty...contrary to that, history tells us that terrorism actually grew out of the opprtunities and economic growth in the region.

Ok... Just explain that part. Give me your history lesson.

*sigh*

[Abcdxxxx]

No thanks, I don't see that being worthy of my time until you can qualify some of your statements first and give them legitemacy. Otherwise, it would be a bit too much like attempting to convince you that the Moon isn't safety orange. If you want to work under the premise that the sole motivation for terrorism is rooted in poverty, you're going to have to prove it first.

[Preechr]

Ok, then... Thanks for backing out.

[Abcdxxxx]

I don't think you're in any position to say that considering that whenever I have bothered, you didn't even respond or acknowledge you were wrong.

[Preechr]

You're 100% right.

Thanks for setting me straight on that.

Night night.

[Johnnie]

I'm currently studying in Israel.. as of what I can feel around this volatile situation right now is that people here are very concerned with Iran, not necessarily (although related) with the whole threat declaration deal, but rather with the indirect war waging (Hizballah) Iran launched towards Israel and how much more would the current government be capable of.
Israel is not taking this lightly at all. Many Israelis feel that the war against Hizballah was a fiasco in terms of mission accomplishments. The government has responded with the replacement of Dan Halutz with Gabi Ashkenazi in the position of ramat-kal (head of the Israeli military). Since then, there has been many changes in the military's policies. Many being more strictly inclined; such as more people having to serve in combat, longer serving time for reserves, and tougher soldier training, among other policies.

To answer the original question. I really doubt the U.S is going to jump on Iran. It seems to me America is just waiting for Israel to do the tougher work (maybe by attacking Syria).

Iran, on the other hand, is feeling very intimidated by now. It knows whatever defense to an American attack it might mount won't matter in the end, which threatens its already tenuous totalitarian hold on it's citizens. Iranian citizens know for a fact how quickly Iraq's regime fell, and their experience with the Iran/Iraq stalemate proves logically that their own government would surely meet the same fate within a few days of our Bradleys crossing the border. No matter how their government might try to lie about this possible future, the people of Iran aren't going to buy it. They know.

1) Where did you get this from? If Iran would had felt intimidated in the slightest, wouldn't you think they would go easier on their nuclear program?

2) I also thought Iran held a totalitarian grasp on its population until I talked to some iranian jewish girls that made Aliyah not long ago. From what they told me, I had it quite understood that their foreign policy does not necessarily reflect how the government runs the country. It's pretty amazing what you can learn from people first hand instead of assuming.

[Preechr]

Well, Johnnie, we get a lot of that here, too. As a matter of fact, if I've got this understood correctly, what's really on the line here is whether or not my wife and daughter are going to be allowed to vote without wearing a burka. Needless to say, I am totally on the side of of the non-Moon-People when it comes to what we should do in this particular situation, and I agree with you fully that if I am not a Jewish person, currently living in the middle east, I have no business having any sort of opinion other than what you tell me to think of my own.

Thanks, back-up dude.

[Abcdxxxx]

Holy shit...is it Preechr's turn to crack up?

Maybe what's really on the line for your wife and daughter is your sanity. You realize Thomas didn't even identify himself as Jewish.

[Preechr]

You're talking about Johnnie, right?

[Abcdxxxx]

Johnnie... Thomas....THEY ALL LOOK THE SAME.

[Preechr]

Allright. Good job.

[Johnnie]

Dude, I don't see why this was blown out of proportion. All I did was give a viewpoint. I don't agree with a lot of the things the Israeli government does. I just expressed what people around feel is going on.

I don't think you can't have an opinion unless you are a ''jew living in the middle east''. I questioned you because I wanted to hear your opinion.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

To answer the original question. I really doubt the U.S is going to jump on Iran. It seems to me America is just waiting for Israel to do the tougher work (maybe by attacking Syria).

I disagree. I think the Israeli factor in all of this has actually put us in a pretty tough spot. I think some of the scenarios have Israel taking out supposed nuclear sites, with limited capacity to simultaneously knock out Iranian anti-aircraft and response systems successfully. This is what I've heard from war game scenarios out of the Army War College anyway, and it matches an older report from the same body. LINK (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/front2453710.0027777776.html)

The IAF could hit spots, but not disable Iran's ability to respond. Then you have war, and the U.S. must get in. If Israel were to act alone and attack a muslim nation, I think you would see a massive build up against them from Iran, Syria, and who knows, maybe even a Russia. I think it would be quite different than when they took out the nukes in Iraq. Saddam was a thug that made most in the Arab world uncomfortable. I think this would be different, and it would pull us in.

So then I think the question becomes, if it becomes inevitable that Israel will strike, do we attack first so it gets done right?

[Johnnie]

I'm gonna have to agree with you. Israel does not have the capability to make a long term air assault on Iran. I mean, it has never directly fought with a distant country before. There's just no means. I think Syria is another story...being an ally and supplier of Iran.
I hope nothing will happen, things seems pretty gloomy the way they are right now. I think if something happens, the US will have to get involved. I can't answer if the States will attack first or not.

[Abcdxxxx]

I think that's a pretty typical viewpoint in Israel - they don't really want any military strikes, but they want a resolution in their favor, and feel like Syria has it coming.

I don't think Bush will order an attack, unless it's in the Saudi's interest. I don't think there's a chance in hell this administration will give Israel the type of backup it would need even for a strike against Syria. That's a painfull reality Israel will have to come to terms with. So Israel's hands are tied. Who knows though. The strike against Saddam's nukes were chastised all around, at first.

[ranxer]

I would like to think that we're not going to hit Iran. I'd really, really like to think that...
In short, yes. I think we will. I hope that I am wrong.

i don't think we will.. too stupid a move and too big a risk,
but i thought the same thing about Iraq.
can't see anything but catastrophe if we do attack though.

my question is so if we do go to war with Iran what will it mean?

i think two basic possibilities.. either they are that stupid or their goals are
not what they say. as many would agree with the latter we have
the 'how far do you mean that' thread but i just want to say it's bad.
not totally convinced but if we bomb Iran the control(or stupidity) by the powers that be must be worse than i want to believe.

we may do 'targetted strikes' on Iran with no invasion at all and downplay the hell out of it, a ground war isn't likely.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Is everyone writing in proses lately?

ranxer, I'll ask that you explain this comment:

either they are that stupid or their goals are
not what they say. as many would agree with the latter we have
the 'how far do you mean that' thread but i just want to say it's bad.
not totally convinced but if we bomb Iran the control(or stupidity) by the powers that be must be worse than i want to believe.

So could you A. quantify and cite just how many people think we have some nefarious motive behind an attack that hasn't even happened yet, and B. Explain to me what the true goal of an Iran attack would be?

Does the UN have a shady motive for denouncing Iran's nuclear ambitions? What about Russia, who attempted to exchange energy with them as an alternative? How about Israel-- who went to war last summer with one of Iran's surrogate armies-- do they have another reason other than defense? Enlighten me.

[Preechr]

Cash dispute delays opening of Iranian reactor
Mark Tran and agencies
Monday March 12, 2007
Guardian Unlimited (http://www.guardian.co.uk/)

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2007/03/12/bushehr372x192.jpg
A construction worker assembles part of Iran's nuclear power plant in the southern port of Bushehr. Photograph: Mehr News Agency/EPA

A dispute over funding has delayed the start of Iran's first nuclear power plant, the state-run Russian company building the facility said today.

"It will be impossible to launch the reactor in September, and there can be no talk about supplying fuel this month," the Russian group Atomstroyexport said in a statement after the collapse of bilateral talks last week over late Iranian payments.


The nuclear facility at Bushehr, under construction in an $800m (£414m) agreement between the Russian and Iranian governments, has been shrouded in controversy.

Of the two reactors at Bushehr, one is in an advanced stage of completion, while the other has not been worked on for some time and is not currently scheduled to be finished. Completion of the facility has been much-delayed over the years and it was supposed to have been ready in 2005.

The US has long opposed the project on the grounds that Iran has sufficient oil and gas reserves for power generation, and that nuclear reactors are expensive, unnecessary and could be used for military purposes.

Although the project is allowed under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the US has provided Russia with intelligence information pointing to the existence of an Iranian nuclear weapons programme. Despite this, the Russians pushed ahead with the project.
The delay in the Bushehr project comes amid reports of tension between Moscow and Tehran on Iran's nuclear programme.

Russian news agencies today reported a source in Moscow as saying that Iran was abusing Russia's stance on its nuclear programme.

"Unfortunately, the Iranians are abusing our constructive relations," news agencies quoted the source as saying. The source added Iran "cannot play forever" on its good relations with Russia and "it is unacceptable for us to have an Iran with a nuclear bomb or the potential to create one".

Iran today issued a bank note with a nuclear symbol in a move seen as an example of its determination to press ahead with uranium enrichment in the face of international sanctions.

The new note for 50,000 rials (£2.80) also reflected rising inflation, a fact that has led to growing criticism of the president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It is worth more than twice the previous highest-denomination note.

The UN security council imposed sanctions on Iran in December after it ignored a resolution demanding that it halt enrichment. The five permanent members of the council plus Germany are now considering further sanctions against Iran.

The US and some of its European allies have accused Iran of seeking uranium enrichment as a part of a secret programme to build nuclear weapons.
Enriched uranium is used as fuel in nuclear reactors but, enriched to a higher level, can be used in atomic bombs. Iran denies that it trying to build nuclear bombs, saying its program is strictly limited to generating electricity.

[GAsux]

I haven't seen a single nuclear energy/weapons expert advocate an form of military action against Iran. I'm not remotely close to familiar with all the workings of nuclear technology, but I understand that unlike the Iraq model, Iran has a much broader nextwork or nuclear facilities which are spread out, some in well populated areas. Further, most agree that there are likely underground facilities that remain unidentified.

From what I've read, no one in the nuclear non-proliferation field believes that any form of military strike will prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. They agree that it may delay the process a few years, but that ultimately at this point it is virtually impossible to stop the process.

Iranian strikes, whether from Israel or the US help the Iranians play the victim card and would probably go a long way towards national unity.

The Iraq war taught the Iranians some valuable lessons. If you have nukes (China, N. Korea) you have bargaining leverage with the U.S. No degree of airstrikes is going to lessen their resolve to get nukes, and as long as they have the technical know how, they'll find a way to make it happen.

For a change, I actually believe in this case diplomacy is the lesser of two evils. Accepting the inevitable and planning on how to deal with it effetively seems to me a better choice then isolation and force.

[Preechr]

Welcome to Team Anti-Semite.

You just wait till Abcdxxx gets here... You're in for it now, buddy.

[Abcdxxxx]

Why? All he said is he thinks Iran's bomb is inevitable, and that we should take diplomatic measures. That's not even close to saying Iran's bomb is a necessary great step towards world peace.

I read GA's post, and didn't have much to add. It's all just a guess. One thing though.... Iran's labs haven't been secret for a few years now.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4617398.stm
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Almanac/IranFacilities.shtml

[GAsux]

Again I don't claim to be a proliferation expert, nor do I claim to fully understand the science of bomb making to include materials, triggers, etc. I would agree that Iran's main labs have probably all been discovered, but I'm willing to bet that they've been at least moderately successful in maintaining secret nuclear related facilities as well.

In virtually every single case regarding intelligence estimates of countries nuclear capabilities, they were vastly underestimated. But even so, assuming we could or have located every single nuclear weapons related facility in Iran, it would be a near impossible task to destroy every single one. And even if you could, you're still talking about a temporary solution. As long as they still have the brain power, they'll always be able to rebuild, unless we're talking about some kind of annual strike package.

Again, for me personally you're looking at either regime change or some kind of diplomacy/disincentive arrangement to maintain stability in the region because I don't see air strikes being an effective long term solution.

[Abcdxxxx]

"Again, for me personally you're looking at either regime change or some kind of diplomacy/disincentive arrangement"

I would agree those are probably the most likely methods for the problem, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility of an attack just based on the task itself. The point would be to make a dent, and destroy the key elements with a goal of setting their program back to around 1995. That would only require 3-4 key strike points, and as they get further along, the target becomes even more central.

I also think people are a bit caught up in this idea of the US and Israel making this strike, as if they're the only ones with any contention for these developments. If Iran gets their bomb, you will see Afghanistan, and Iraq turn into a ball of insanity.

[GAsux]

What political impact do military strikes have though, and are they worth it? Even if you can set the program back, even a decade, what does what would presumably be a unilateral strike from either the U.S. or Israel do to it's credibility, not to mention the impact it would have on the Iranian regime? Doesn't pre-emptive air strikes afford Iran the opportunity to strengthen its position internally by rallying the people against what would then be an enemy no only in words but in deeds?

A pre-emptive air strike based on information from the intelligence community that is already facing serious credibility issues based on what transpired in Iraq seems like a ridiculously risky move. In my opinion, you would not only strengthen the Iranian regimes internal position, but allow for them to build a reasonable international case against the "unprovoked" aggressive U.S./Israeli tactics.

Seems like it might provide a stop gap and buy more time, but I can't see air strikes solving the problem unless we intend to carry them out every 5-10 years.

[Abcdxxxx]

What political impact do military strikes have though, and are they worth it?

Too generic. You could ask this of any military manuever.

Even if you can set the program back, even a decade, what does what would presumably be a unilateral strike from either the U.S. or Israel do to it's credibility

The Iranian nuclear program itself? Setting it back a decade would probably end the chances of a nuclear Iran for another 15 years, if at all. Strategically, that's a huge bonus when one considers that two of their neighboring nations are a bit up for grabs at the moment, with Syria/Lebanon on the verge as well. I'm not entirely sure we should rule out a strike from other neighboring nations though. This whole assumption that the US/Israel are the only nations with a self interest in strikign Iran is incredibly naive.


not to mention the impact it would have on the Iranian regime? Doesn't pre-emptive air strikes afford Iran the opportunity to strengthen its position internally by rallying the people against what would then be an enemy no only in words but in deeds?

You think Iranians want to go to war over this bomb? Look, Iranians are incredibly proud and loyal to their country - but this Islamic revolution hasn't really paid off. The interests in Tehran aren't the same as the country-side. Take a look at the US and you can see how war itself can be polarizing when you're not entirely trusting of your leadership. I'm not suggesting it's a good reason to bomb, but I wouldn't rule it out out of fear it would strengthen a country already ruled by totalitarianism.

A pre-emptive air strike based on information from the intelligence community that is already facing serious credibility issues based on what transpired in Iraq seems like a ridiculously risky move.


Well how far do you want to take that logic? Disband the military? I think your assumption is, we strike their nukes, it results in a full scale war against Iran. I think that's hysteria built around military analysis and other intelligence type research which predicts the worst possible situation. My personal guess would have Iran using the opportunity to make a move for Saudi Arabia instead. This issue with Iran is more to do with a Sunni-Shia conflict then the great satan, and the little satan.


In my opinion, you would not only strengthen the Iranian regimes internal position, but allow for them to build a reasonable international case against the "unprovoked" aggressive U.S./Israeli tactics.

What use does that international case have? US/Israel are accused of everything under the sun already. If they want provocation, they can manipulate it on two different fronts which aren't even directly at their borders...and they have been doing that effectively. So what are you arguing? That public opinion will lean towards Iran? Probably, but remember, the Osirus attacks were condemned by everyone, including the US, and that opinion changed over time.

Seems like it might provide a stop gap and buy more time, but I can't see air strikes solving the problem unless we intend to carry them out every 5-10 years.

Ultimately, I see diplomacy and even sanctions being the better way to go... but I don't see any of this as being very persuasive arguments against a targeted strike.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

This whole assumption that the US/Israel are the only nations with a self interest in strikign Iran is incredibly naive.

Interest and means, however, are two different things. Maybe you can come up with one, but I can't think of another nation that right now has the means AND the political will (be it from the people or from the top) to attack Iran right now.

The UN writing a really nasty letter to Iran is one thing, but you won't see a green light o an attack, IMO. Who other than Israel ans America would do it? Would Pakistan, which doesn't even have control of its own internal borders, attack Iran..another muslim country?

[Abcdxxxx]

We're living in a world where Ethiopea takes a hardline military stance while Israel makes whishy washy attempts at war. Who can guess? A few weeks ago I might have said Egypt in combination with another country, but then they decided they'd like a bomb of their own instead. I firmly believe that as the region errupts into assymetrical wars we're going to see more assymetrical alliances that only make sense for the moment if at all. I wouldn't be shocked if it happens and nobody takes credit for it at all.

Anyway all I said was that there are other nations with an interest in a strike, not that they might be able to carry it out themselves independently.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

For Preechr, from The Hotline:

The New Hampshire Union Leader ed board writes, on 3/15 Edwards "presented his foreign policy vision, one that can be seen only through rose colored glasses." Edwards: "We know that terrorist thrive in failed states and in states torn apart by internal conflict and poverty."
"Perhaps, but poverty does not cause terrorism. Not one of the 9/11 hijackers was poor. Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants are not poor. Terrorism is fueled by ideology. The 'internal conflict' in Middle Eastern countries is the result of the same ideological forces that send terrorists to America, not the cause." Edwards "is stuck in a quasi-Marxist mind set in which social and economic conditions explain human behavior. However, human motivations are not so simplistic. If Edwards were to remove his rose colored glasses, maybe he could see that" (3/19).

That's right, you quasi-Marxist!

[Preechr]

That book I've referenced (The Pentagon's New Map) was written by a military/intelligence analyst that counts himself a Democrat. Everybody on that ticket is very familiar with his work, not to say the NeoCons within the R camp haven't heard him many times as well. His follow up (A Blueprint for Action) is basically, surprisingly, the working blueprint for the Democratization/Globalization of the gap states. I see his work all over the place. I've said before it's THE only, real Liberal viewpoint to be had.

[Abcdxxxx]

Sounds like it's time for y'all to buy another book then. As if what we really need is a retired professor in the subject of Marxism advising out defense department.

[Preechr]

Russia reportedly exits Iran nuke site
By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer 56 minutes ago



Russia is pulling out its experts from the Iranian nuclear reactor site they were helping build, U.S. and European officials said Tuesday. The move reflected a growing rift between Iran and Russia that could lead to harsher U.N. sanctions on the Islamic republic for its refusal to stop uranium enrichment.

The representatives — a European diplomat and a U.S. official — said a large number of Russian technicians, engineers and other specialists have returned to Moscow in the past week, at about the same time senior Russian and Iranian officials tried unsuccessfully to resolve financial differences over the Bushehr nuclear reactor. They spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because their information was confidential.

"A good number of them have left recently," said the U.S. official, of the approximately 2,000 Russian workers on site of the nearly completed reactor outside the southern city of Bushehr. The European diplomat, who is accredited to the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, said a large number had left as recently as last week.

Sergei Novikov, a spokesman for Rosatom, Russia's Federal Nuclear Power Agency, confirmed that the number of Russian workers at the Bushehr plant had dwindled because of what he said were Iranian payment delays. He would not say how many had left.

The Russian departures are formally linked to a financial dispute with Iran but have a strong political component, linked to international efforts to persuade the Islamic republic to freeze activities linked to uranium enrichment, which can produce both nuclear fuel and the fissile material for nuclear warheads.

Although the reactor is 95 percent completed, Russia announced this month that further work would be delayed because Iran had failed to make monthly payments since January. It said the delay could cause "irreversible" damage to the project.

Because of the delay, Russia also indefinitely postponed delivery of enriched uranium fuel it had promised to provide Iran by this month.

Iran, which denies falling behind in payments, was furious, convinced Russia — which has long blunted a U.S.-led push for the U.N. Security Council sanctions — was now using the claim of financial arrears as a pretext to increase pressure for it to heed the council.






Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.