Should the US attack Iran in order to set back the militant tendancies of Iran? Simultaneously, disrupting Iran's military buildup should also cause Hezbollah to need to become less aggressive.
Granted, attacking Iran would require more forces.
What am I missing? Why would waiting for them to attack us be better? Wouldn't we be better off in the future if we dealt with the growing threat now?
War is generally a bad ting. Lots of people must die. Iran is intent on achieving uranium enrichment. How much they intend to enrich the material is questionable, but it seems pretty clear that they don't merely want uranium for powering electrical generation.
Should they be stomped on? Would the resistance movement be okay if we were to try destroying the leadership of Iran? Could we take out the IRGC with relatively little collateral damage?
How many dead people are acceptable?
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 43
We may have a different GOD, but I would do about anything for mine...so...
I just don't believe that ANY GOD (if it were a true God), would ask a human being to kill in His name. That is what scares me most.
Please read:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976778583
Similarly, God doesn't tell most people to kill people, people tell people that God wants them to kill people.
The Koran is also supposed to be directly from God, not Paul's interpretation of God's direction, or Johnm's interpretation, or Matthew's Interpretation, or Mark's interpretation.
But God doesn't tell people to kill, people tell people to kill.
It's sad that some countries in this world may need to call Iran to task for iot's transgressions.
We cycle up. cycle down, up , down...and before you know it, it will be too late, down down down.....messing with Iran should be the last step before the entire world turns on us...vote repub and you just might get to see...
Carter didn't notice even when hit across the head with an embassy...
Will we now ignore the threat when it is no longer hiding?
I feel we are in Iraq for 3 reasons… because it was right to do and because it puts us in with a democracy between Iran and Israel and third… Iran is between Iraq and Afghanistan… a mistake? I think not.
Good article.
Without the thumb, the hand isn't very powerful.
From Iran's strategic point of view, Hizbollah's presence in Lebanon represents a line of defense against attack from Israel, a second front. Iran has offered to negotiate with the US regarding Iran's support of groups such as Hizbollah and Hamas, mentioning specific concessions. Iran's chief interest is in establishing full relations with the US, which would offer guarantees of her security and freedom of trade . Iran was willing to recognize Israel as part of a general agreement. The following gives some information regarding Iran's past proposals:
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=33348
Iran Proposal to U.S. Offered Peace with Israel
Gareth Porter*
WASHINGTON, May 24 (IPS) - Iran offered in 2003 to accept peace with Israel and to cut off material assistance to Palestinian armed groups and pressure them to halt terrorist attacks within Israel's 1967 borders, according to the secret Iranian proposal to the United States.
The two-page proposal for a broad Iran-U.S. agreement covering all the issues separating the two countries, a copy of which was obtained by IPS, was conveyed to the United States in late April or early May 2003. Trita Parsi, a specialist on Iranian foreign policy at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies who provided the document to IPS, says he got it from an Iranian official earlier this year but is not at liberty to reveal the source.
The two-page document contradicts the official line of the George W. Bush administration that Iran is committed to the destruction of Israel and the sponsorship of terrorism in the region.
Parsi says the document is a summary of an even more detailed Iranian negotiating proposal which he learned about in 2003 from the U.S. intermediary who carried it to the State Department on behalf of the Swiss Embassy in late April or early May 2003. The intermediary has not yet agreed to be identified, according to Parsi.
The Iranian negotiating proposal indicated clearly that Iran was prepared to give up its role as a supporter of armed groups in the region in return for a larger bargain with the United States. What the Iranians wanted in return, as suggested by the document itself as well as expert observers of Iranian policy, was an end to U.S. hostility and recognition of Iran as a legitimate power in the region.
Before the 2003 proposal, Iran had attacked Arab governments which had supported the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The negotiating document, however, offered "acceptance of the Arab League Beirut declaration", which it also referred to as the "Saudi initiative, two-states approach."
The March 2002 Beirut declaration represented the Arab League's first official acceptance of the land-for-peace principle as well as a comprehensive peace with Israel in return for Israel's withdrawal to the territory it had controlled before the 1967 war.. Iran's proposed concession on the issue would have aligned its policy with that of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, among others with whom the United States enjoyed intimate relations.
Another concession in the document was a "stop of any material support to Palestinian opposition groups (Hamas, Jihad, etc.) from Iranian territory" along with "pressure on these organizations to stop violent actions against civilians within borders of 1967".
Even more surprising, given the extremely close relationship between Iran and the Lebanon-based Hizbollah Shiite organisation, the proposal offered to take "action on Hizbollah to become a mere political organization within Lebanon".
The Iranian proposal also offered to accept much tighter controls by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in exchange for "full access to peaceful nuclear technology". It offered "full cooperation with IAEA based on Iranian adoption of all relevant instruments (93+2 and all further IAEA protocols)".
That was a reference to protocols which would require Iran to provide IAEA monitors with access to any facility they might request, whether it had been declared by Iran or not. That would have made it much more difficult for Iran to carry out any secret nuclear activities without being detected.
In return for these concessions, which contradicted Iran's public rhetoric about Israel and anti-Israeli forces, the secret Iranian proposal sought U.S. agreement to a list of Iranian aims. The list included a "Halt in U.S. hostile behavior and rectification of status of Iran in the U.S.", as well as the "abolishment of all sanctions".
Also included among Iran's aims was "recognition of Iran's legitimate security interests in the region with according defense capacity". According to a number of Iran specialists, the aim of security and an official acknowledgment of Iran's status as a regional power were central to the Iranian interest in a broad agreement with the United States.
Negotiation of a deal with the United States that would advance Iran's security and fundamental geopolitical political interests in the Persian Gulf region in return for accepting the existence of Israel and other Iranian concessions has long been discussed among senior Iranian national security officials, according to Parsi and other analysts of Iranian national security policy.
An Iranian threat to destroy Israel has been a major propaganda theme of the Bush administration for months. On Mar. 10, Bush said, "The Iranian president has stated his desire to destroy our ally, Israel. So when you start listening to what he has said to their desire to develop a nuclear weapon, then you begin to see an issue of grave national security concern."
But in 2003, Bush refused to allow any response to the Iranian offer to negotiate an agreement that would have accepted the existence of Israel. Flynt Leverett, then the senior specialist on the Middle East on the National Security Council staff, recalled in an interview with IPS that it was "literally a few days" between the receipt of the Iranian proposal and the dispatch of a message to the Swiss ambassador expressing displeasure that he had forwarded it to Washington.
Interest in such a deal is still very much alive in Tehran, despite the U.S. refusal to respond to the 2003 proposal. Turkish international relations professor Mustafa Kibaroglu of Bilkent University writes in the latest issue of Middle East Journal that "senior analysts" from Iran told him in July 2005 that "the formal recognition of Israel by Iran may also be possible if essentially a 'grand bargain' can be achieved between the U.S. and Iran".
The proposal's offer to dismantle the main thrust of Iran's Islamic and anti-Israel policy would be strongly opposed by some of the extreme conservatives among the mullahs who engineered the repression of the reformist movement in 2004 and who backed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in last year's election.
However, many conservative opponents of the reform movement in Iran have also supported a negotiated deal with the United States that would benefit Iran, according to Paul Pillar, the former national intelligence officer on Iran. "Even some of the hardliners accepted the idea that if you could strike a deal with the devil, you would do it," he said in an interview with IPS last month.
The conservatives were unhappy not with the idea of a deal with the United States but with the fact that it was a supporter of the reform movement of Pres. Mohammad Khatami, who would get the credit for the breakthrough, Pillar said.
Parsi says that the ultimate authority on Iran's foreign policy, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was "directly involved" in the Iranian proposal, according to the senior Iranian national security officials he interviewed in 2004. Kamenei has aligned himself with the conservatives in opposing the pro-democratic movement.
*Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. His latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in June 2005.
**Text of Iran proposal http://ipsnews.net/iranletterfacsimile.pdf (END/2006)
Well are you trusting the Iranian government and everything they are saying?
Marty,
I believe there are things in the works, but I am still concerned that politics of the day (at home and in Europe) will hamper the attempt to cut out Iran's thumbs before they do great Harm. I am concerned that Iran is already armed (nukes), but waiting for the right moment to attack Israel and or Europe (or to have a few more bombs ready)… Like if 10 planes had been blown up by Terrorists over the Atlantic they might have attacked right then… and then China might also use the distraction to attack Taiwan and North Korea to Invade South Korea… The south would give up facing the possible destruction of Soul.
That's the crux of the world situation, if it was simply Islamists with Iran as the focus we would have done it already (I hope) but to engage any new enemy we need to be ready for the countries looking for opportunities to grab what they can out of a world at war.
I hate the harm of war anyone with a heart must, but I know sometimes we must be willing to fertilize the tree of Liberty with the Blood of Patriots and of the Enemy and yes, in was the Innocents as well.
I have worked in the refugee camps of Thailand and know the harm of war, but in those camps I saw more specifically the harm of totalitarianism, how the true destruction of a people is when they stop believing in their own freedom and ability to do for themselves, this is the greatest harm, greater then mere casualties… for that kind of harm will last generations… We see the continuing problems in the former Soviet Republics, and it will take decades more for the hope to completely return, if they don't give up the fight and become slaves to a new dictator…
Sorry Marty, I got rolling… Did I answer your original question? At least some?
Why does Iran want relations with the U.S.? I think that the deal they want to strike would be -give us nuclear energy for fule and we will recognize Israel. Ok, at my job when a person from a fieldcrew askes for something, anything. I ask myself If they deserve it. Now with terrorist attacks funded by Iran(and other middle eastern countries)since 1979, I for one, dont think they deserve it. Dont they live ON TOP of the oil. If energy is the issue, I dont see what Iran is so worried about.
Second, I could see maybe talking with them after they change their ways. Remeber, the president was a known terrorist. I woudn't give a person a gun if i didn't them.
In theory they can say that they recognize Israel. then they could say,after they develop a nuke, what they have been saying since Israel was founded.
That "Israel it should be wipped of the map."- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
What are you? Iraqi or Iranian?
Jerry, I do not know. Most likely, they will not want boots on the ground. At least for a given time period. Unfortunately, as we've learned from Iraq, if a city is allowed to exist for a given time period without law and order, then criminal elements will try to capitalize on the situation.
Mark, I don't have confidence. I am just curious.
Stanley, John probably has some issues. Maybe English is a second language. Difficulties can exist in expressing one's feelings in a non-native tongue.
Matthew, yes, you've answered part of the question, it remains to be seen if we actually will try confronting Iran.
Clarke, thank you, but putting forth a proposal from the previous administration, is like trying to advance the good will toward Cuba after the return of Elian Gonzalez, during the Clinton years during the Bush administration.
Perhaps Ahmedinejad would say that the camel has left the encampment.
Maybe we should try spreading more of our culture through commercial means.
Tom, I agree, Iran probably isn't interested in nuclear energy. Perhaps cheap electricity will enable them to get away from wasteful gas guzzling automobiles, but they need better, more recent technology than they have at present.
Business as usual....
>>>>
The main point to take from the article on thte 2003 proposal was analysts indicate Iran may agree to negotiate today. Iran is in a stronger position bargaining position now, because of the US debacle in Iraq. A military adventure by the US against Iran would fail to weaken Iran, in fact it would be counterproductive, not only for the US, but also the West for it would shift the balance of power to the East. China would be the big winner. Russia would also be a winner because Europe would be more dependent on her for energy. The US influence in the Middle East with its Arab clients, as Saudi Arabia and Egypt , who are rivals to Iran's influence in the region. For the Arab states would have to establish good relations with Iran and decrease US ties. Actually, we are speaking of 15 different nations that border Iran (no other country has so many neighbors). Regardless of US policy, Iran will become the premier power in the region, an empire, in a sense. Europe, Russia and China have accepted this. China is dependent on Iran for oil, and requires about 80% of Iran's export of oil. A recent 100 billion dollar contract with Iran for oil underlines that. India likewise is dependent on Iran.
What is that? Is it the same thing as:
"Vote dem and you might get to EXPERIENCE" ???
Personally, I think we should just leave them all the hell alone. And watch a European city or two go up in smoke. And stand by while they nuke a few of our own. Maybe then we could see the real truth. It might help us make up our minds.
You see, that's what "preemptive" means. We smack them before they have a chance to smack up. And since everybody's screaming what a terrible thing it is for us to have killed some thousands of innocents as we try to track down the perps, maybe we ought to just gather up our toys and go home. Then when they vaporize "some thousands" (how many are killed when you set off a 20-kiloton nuclear warhead in, say, Manhattan?) of our own folks, maybe then we'd see things a little clearer. (See my article )
Europe , especially France have large, mostly poor Muslim minorities and a considerable number of educated, middle-class second-generation, homegrown ones who are frustrated because they are excluded and discriminated against for being "Muslim." They are susceptible to extremist groups because they represent resistance - a good thing - but the terrorist ones , a very small percentage are dangerous. The US Muslims are well-off relative to other minorities, much smaller in number and have not until recently felt discriminated against. So far the US has assimilated many minorities, but now we have a problem . Among many other groups, 10% of Mexicans have come here. In any Europe has a long history and a different way of seeing the world. Americans have little experience by comparison. A Kissinger is a realist in the European tradition. The current US policies are naive, ideological and undiplomatic. The consequences so far have been disastrous for the US. The notion that the War on Terror is linked to a Clash of Civilizations or a confrontation with "Islam" is ridiculous in reality. But Americans are gullible and uninformed.
Is that not just where we are headed with the wishes of the conservative far right expressed by a few (more or less) here and in other threads related to this very same subject ???
You just might think that that is a bit far fetched, but, give then enough rope, and they will probably hang..us !
Breking news 8/24-Terrorists kidnapped a FOX News reporter and his cameraman. They demand EVERY muslim prisoner in American jails be released.
Clarke if you acually DO some research you might be suprised .
The "Right" wasn't called the "right" untill the "left" called us that. In my opinion both parties have sold us down the river in the last 25 years. The "right" has seen the real problem at hand.
If you don't want the rights that our forefathers gave us then don't use them.
tom I, Likewise. I have done my research.
For some background to what I posted above regarding my view this "War on Terror" and "Clash of Civilizations"
I repost two recent response's to Dulse ! article:
1.
Duse !,
Brief comments on your on thoughts. First, Chalabi has long had extensive contacts in Israel as well as Iran (don't imagine the Mullahs in Iran don't do business with Israel. The Russian Mafia is very big in Israel, too.) Chalabi got backed by the US to be our puppet to replace
Saddam. Iraq was a neocon "Project for new American Century " operation. The dual-citizenships crowd and Wolfowitz and such. Chalabi was a useful lobbyist and con-man that they could use.
Hizbollah did not expect the escalation from their capturing soldiers. Prisoner exchange was the usual result of such kidnappings. The border since 2000 had been pretty calm. UN had recorded 1800 Israeli incursions, only 100 by Hizbollah. Few military incidentsOne Israeli civilian had died from 2000 to July 2006 kidnapping. Israel had been active in Lebanon, doing targetted assassinations in Beirut.
It doesn't figure Iran wanted to provoke a war. I doubt they knew or approved of Nasrallah's actions. Hizbollah represented a "second front" to deter Israel from attacking Iran. A weakend Hizbollah was not a good thing. Iran is interested in direct negotiations with the US
to make their position in the region secure from hostile Arab states and Israel. They want sanctions removed, trade with US and access to World Bank. Their 2003 proposal to US offered many concessions to make a deal.
Among them recognition of Israel, acceptance of the 2002 Arab proposal that included settlement of Israel-Palestine question and recognition of Israel. The 2003 proposal also made commitments regarding support for Hizbollah and Hamas, and terms on nuclear development.
Possibly the Supreme Leader Khamenei, a hard-liner would still be willing to push for a similar deal. He is in charge of official policy, foreign and domestic. Ahmadinejad hasn't the power. I don't like Larijani's handling of the current negotiations with Group of 5 plus 1 so far. Hassan Rohani, a senior figure, would be better.
He would work toward better relations with Europe and the US down the line and not get distracted.
2
Dulsi !,
Chalabi has long wheeled and dealed for the Anglo-Americans, Israeli, European, Russian ( oligarchs and organized crime) powers that tell politicians how high to jump. Drugs, arms, money transfer help keep the banks and governments afloat. Making wars is doing business.
Check out the resumes of the neocons and their connections. Take Perle , Bolton, Netanyahu to name a few.
My analysis was intended to present what the interests of the different players are at present, and how the US can best serve its interest. I don't agree with your take, but so be it. I have researched and worked in the region for nearly half a century, and I try to form a realistic, balanced view. Most of the information one reads has to be interpreted critically. It is easy to say the US and Israel are both getting screwed from within, but that is too simplistic. There is a lot of history involved. Today presents certain conditions and options, and that was my focus.
It is a really sad state of affairs that the US has the low standing in the world that exists right now...in fact, it is far lower than our news media is willing to tell us...
By the way, FOX is the accuser of MSM being Liberal biased, that is blatantly false except when compared to FOX...you would have to go all the way over to FSTV's Democracy Now to understand the REAL overall truth of media bias...all that is corporately owned, and that includes MSM, is skewed in the direction of the owners, yet some are comparatively more liberal only to fool us all into a straw-man complex.
Bottom line, It Is Not a good thing that we are a minority in the world...but we will not achieve a better standing (that is worth anything) by killing off enough of the majority to re-balance the scales.
If the US were not being attacked, we would not be violent. The sad truth is that we are being attacked, but at the same time, we have fallen into the same trap that technology has given us. The precision guided munitions enable us to try being precise, but at the same time, we are not killing large nubers of people. Maybe that should be the true goal of war. It was certainly the goal of the terrorists.
People probably do die during conflicts, the limited access to medicines, and good hospitalization is certainly a contributing factor. Limited technology is another reason.
Wise words.
Oh, wait, correction, our middle class is in the tank- the very rich are getting richer by the minute. Too bad we don't have stock in Haliburton and some of those other no bid contract corporations or have oil money.
Since we don't have enough military to accomplish anything in Iraq (according to our own generals), Afganistan is going back down the tubes and we don't have enough National guard to take care of things at home- how are we going to open yet another front?
Which of you have served or plan to join the armed services? If you are too old- are you willing to give your sons and daughters? your grandchildren?
"We have become the most powerful minority in the world. That's not a good thing...."
Wise words indeed, Fletcher. I think by continuing down the road we're on, we are painting a giant bull's eye on our heads. Surely we could try some other solutions- open up diplomatic relations would be a good start. I have NEVER resolved a disagreement with anyone by refusing to speak to them, how about you?
John S.- you make some points with which I agree but why start out right of the bat insulting people? You pretty much guarantee they won't listen to you that way.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981005177