Thoughts On Iran

I think it is much ado about nothing. As I have commented in countless other threads here on Gather, put yourself in Iran's shoes. You have three or four nuclear weapons...or a dozen, it doesn't matter. So you launch a nuclear attack on Israel, right? Only if you want to commit national suicide! Israel and the US would reduce Teheran and most of the rest of Iran to a pile of smoking radioactive rubble in about twenty minutes.
They know we are just looking for an excuse to attack them.
Okay, you say, what if they give a nuke or two to Al Qaeda who then try to sneak them into this country? The result would be the same. It's possible to identify the source of nuclear materials by slight chemical variations in the blast residue. Iran would still be "toast." And they know it. Ain't gonna happen. They want nukes for two reasons: First, national prestige, and the political power they may gain as a result. Second, as protection against possible attack and invasion by us! They don't want to become another Iraq! And I don't blame them a bit!

I'm with Bert on this one. And I will add, chaos is stability for totalitarian governments. It keeps the folks on the farm and out of the streets.

I think bert is right also, But I would like to make sure we have good satalite coverage on the area. Don't forget that Isreal has nukes also. They are probably just as scared of Isreal using them as Isreal is of them using them.

Candida., All respects. Ahmadinejad is in charge of nothing but his mouth! My opinion.

I'm with Bert. It will be several years before Iran actually has the capability to participate in a nuclear war. By then, the more advanced countries will be even more advanced (and they told two friends, and they told friends and so on, and so on.....)

As far as the US getting involved, though, we (via the neoconservative movement) already are. We're heavily invested in Israel-Palestinian relations which are what started the main problems in the Middle East. Iran is aware of what they're up against and "pre-emptive strike against Israel" is a ridiculous option.

For Bert, Christopher, and Daniel.
I'm sure you guys are familiar with "Clean Break" and PNAC. I am also certain the Iranians are too. They know that subjugation of Iran is the final goal of that plan. And I see them forcing the issue. Iran is clearly obsessed with the destruction of Israel and they see their nuclear ambitions as their only defense. It is easy to see the Iranian perspective. If I may add, there is a strategic alliance between the US and Israel; there is not a US-Israeli Defense Pact. There will not be a nuclear response from the US if Israel is under nuclear attack.

There is no way we will leave Iraq until the Iran question is also settled. This is where critics of the Iraq invasion, and I count myself among them, get it all wrong. Bush and company have created a situation where it will be impossible to leave, even if Democrats gain control of the government. Leaving gives Iran potentail domination of the entire region. Iran will have to be contained at the very least.

Has anyone here spoken to an Iranian person, who may have friends or relatives in Iran, and could offer some insight from the Iranian point of view? Is anyone on Gather Iranian?

Hello Candida,

Ahmadinejad may sound mad to us, but consider this excerpt from a WSJ opinion piece.

"Mr. Ahmadinejad's defiant rhetoric is based on a strategy known in Middle Eastern capitals as "waiting Bush out." "We are sure the U.S. will return to saner policies," says Manuchehr Motakki, Iran's new Foreign Minister.

Mr. Ahmadinejad believes that the world is heading for a clash of civilizations with the Middle East as the main battlefield. In that clash Iran will lead the Muslim world against the "Crusader-Zionist camp" led by America. Mr. Bush might have led the U.S. into "a brief moment of triumph." But the U.S. is a "sunset" (ofuli) power while Iran is a sunrise (tolu'ee) one and, once Mr. Bush is gone, a future president would admit defeat and order a retreat as all of Mr. Bush's predecessors have done since Jimmy Carter.

Mr. Ahmadinejad also notes that Iran has just "reached the Mediterranean" thanks to its strong presence in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. He used that message to convince Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to adopt a defiant position vis-à-vis the U.N. investigation of the murder of Rafiq Hariri, a former prime minister of Lebanon. His argument was that once Mr. Bush is gone, the U.N., too, will revert to its traditional lethargy. "They can pass resolutions until they are blue in the face," Mr. Ahmadinejad told a gathering of Hezbollah, Hamas and other radical Arab leaders in Tehran last month."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008154

The US government says that Iran is ten years away from having a nuclear weapon. Ten years. There is no hurry here and no reason to rush into something we have neither the troops for or the money.

I'll ask you all one very important question: what happens the day afterwe attack Iran?

Finally, Ahmed-i-Nejad is not the most powerful man in Iran. The most powerful man in Khameini, head of the Guardian Council. Ahmed-i-Nejad is a puppet and and Islamist doppleganger of George W. Bush.

Have you ever met the guy? And yet you call him a thug? Do you really know very much about him? And these people don't much look like thugs. What happens to them? Or perhaps this boy? War has consequences.

Moreover, this comment of yours, "So far, I've seen in all the rhetoric and protestations over the moral rightness or wrongness of going into Iraq, very little in the way of reasoned solutions." Reveals quite a bit. Were you talking about Iran or Iraq?

Let's make something very, very clear: I am not arguing against a strike out of moral righteousness or anger or anything other than cold, hard, strategic calculation. No one has yet to offer me a decent answer as to what happens the day after. No one touches that question. And the Israeli's have publicy warned us against striking Iran.

Finally, we quite possibly already are attacking Iran and meddling in their internal affairs:

CLANCY: Well, Colonel Gardiner, from what you're saying, it would seem like military men, then, might be cautioning, don't go ahead with this. But what are the signs that are out there right now? Is there any evidence of any movement in that direction?

GARDINER: Sure. Actually, Jim, I would say -- and this may shock some -- I think the decision has been made and military operations are under way.

CLANCY: Why?

GARDINER: And let me say this -- I'm saying this carefully. First of all, Sy Hersh said in that article which was...

CLANCY: Yes, but that's one unnamed source.

GARDINER: Let me check that. Not unnamed source as not being valid.

The way "The New Yorker" does it, if somebody tells Sy Hersh something, somebody else in the magazine calls them and says, "Did you tell Sy Hersh that?" That's one point.

The secretary[sic] point is, the Iranians have been saying American military troops are in there, have been saying it for almost a year. I was in Berlin two weeks ago, sat next to the ambassador, the Iranian ambassador to the IAEA. And I said, "Hey, I hear you're accusing Americans of being in there operating with some of the units that have shot up revolution guard units."

He said, quite frankly, "Yes, we know they are. We've captured some of the units, and they've confessed to working with the Americans."

The evidence is mounting that that decision has already been made, and I don't know that the other part of that has been completed, that there has been any congressional approval to do this.

My view of the plan is, there is this period in which some kinds of ground troops will operate inside Iran, and then what we're talking about is the second part, which is this air strike.

CLANCY: All right. You lay this whole scenario, but there are still a lot of caution flags that one would see out here.

GARDINER: Sure. True.

CLANCY: If they do decide on a military option...

GARDINER: Right?

CLANCY: ... what's the realistic chance of success? What's your -- your prognosis for that kind of reaction here?

GARDINER: Yes. Let me give you two answers to that. First of all, the chance of getting the facilities and setting back the program, I think the chances go from maybe two years to actually accelerating the program. You know, we could cause them to redouble their efforts. That's on one side.

The other side is this sort of horizontal escalation by the Iranians.

My assessment is -- and it's because of regime problems at home -- that if we strike, they're likely to want to blame Israel. Now that's -- because that sells well at home.

Blaming Israel means that there's a chance that we could see Hezbollah, Hamas targeting Israel. We could very easily see this thing escalate into a broader Middle East war, particularly when you add Muslim rage.

You know, if you take the cartoon problem and multiply it times a hundred -- you know, the Danish cartoons, you could see how we could end up very quickly with a very serious problem in the Middle East.

CLANCY: Former U.S. Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner. Not a very rosy outlook here. A man who thinks the decision may have already been made.

Thank you for being with us.

GARDINER: Certainly.

Again, I'll ask the question and wait for an answer: what happens the day after we strike?

But we have a moral obligation to plan for that day. We can't jsut drop the bombs and say, "Ok. We're done here." We're not the Mongols sweeping across the great Central Asia steppes like a plague of locusts leaving ruin in their wake. We're a civilized society. We have a duty to contemplate the consequences of our actions. Isn't that what you teach your children? It is certainly what my father taught me and what I hope to pass on to my own children. The ostrich defense is unacceptable just because something is too horrible to contemplate. We're supposed to be better than that.

Peter: Hope is not an acceptable policy.

Moreover, there is no, absolutely no 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' dichotomy here. The Iranians have practically begged us to negotiate with them, now and in the past. They want to cut a deal on everything from Iraq to nuclear weapons. The proof is out there if we only look for it.

Why is it that Reagan, that great icon of conservatism, could cut a deal with the 'Evil Empire' in 1986 and George W. Bush cannot?

Candida, you misunderstand me: I am not talking about a nuclear attack. I am talking about any significant military action against Iran. What happens the day after we attack them? What happens with the Pasdaran in Basra and Muqtada al-Sadr in Baghdad when they start shooting up British and American soldiers. We can't even handle a Sunni insurgency. What do you think will happen when the Shi'ites erupt?

These are serious questions that deserve serious concrete answers, not fear, paranoia and slogans.

What is the reality on the ground? What is the reality on the ground that our HUMINT and real live soldiers face when that day comes?

The biggest mistake we could make in our inevitable confrontation with Iran is to believe that its leaders will act rationally.

Ilan Berman has written at the National Review Online, that Iran's President Ahmadinejad is actively seeking a crisis with the West:

"In a recent closed-door session of the foreign policy and national security committee of the majles, Iran's parliament, Ahmadinejad laid out the cornerstone of his foreign-policy strategy. The past decade-and-a-half of 'détente,' Ahmadinejad told lawmakers, had cost the Islamic republic dearly. The message was unmistakable: It is now time for confrontation."

Berman also reminds us that in his manifesto, "Islamic Government," Khomeini outlined what would be come the guiding philosophy of the Iranian mullahs' regime:

"To create a victorious and triumphant Islamic political revolution . . . to unite the Moslem nation, [and] to liberate [all] its lands."

Isn't that goal is very similar to bin Laden's goal of causing a conflagration, a war between the Islamic world and the infidels?

California Yankee: the easiest way to avoid thinking seriously about foreign affairs is to portray your opponent as 'irrational.'

Peter: John von Neumman called for precisely that in the late 40s and early 50s. Fortunately we didn't listen to him. Aggressive nuclear war is simply not an option. Nuclear weapons should be used to defend the terroritory of the United States, not to serve our economic interests. It's immoral to act otherwise.

Candida: alas, we see how it really is. Incapable of marshaling any substantive arguments you fall back on the easiest way to end the debate short of comparing someone to Hitler: the patriot card.

I resent the implication that I'm not a patriot and that other's aren't patriots because we are 'vocal anti-war whiners.' How dare you or anyone else say so.

The simple fact is this, no matter how you spin it: we were right about Iraq. We were right about WMD. We were right about the fact that Bush wasn't serious about getting Osama.

I am sick and tired of people underhandedly or quite overtly braning me as unpatriotic because I oppose the Bush administration.

Moreover, your careless attitude towards human life is frankly troubling, "better them that us" is not too far removed from 'either you are with me or you are with the terrorists'. I never said the Pasdaran or the Qods or Hezbollah for that matter are angels. They are not. But this is the real argument here isn't it. If I don't believe the same way that you do, I am simply unpatriotic and aiding and abetting and supporting our enemies.

I've spent my whole life educating myself about the world, studying it, traveling around it and going to places that most Americans would never think of going. I've represented America in ways that the simple tourist to Tuscany doesn't have any conception. I've been an American ambassador to people who will never meet an American, ever, ever again. I communicated with them as equals, treated them all with dignity, even when I was afraid, and in the face of a withering Wahhabist rant by a mullah in Central Asia. We smiled at each other, spoke of Isa (also known as Jesus) and his great message of love and tolerance, we shook hands and learned that we were each, in our hearts, after the same thing: the ability to make our own autonomous choices as humans, in the culture and society of our making.

I am sick and tired of being labeled a traitor simply because I oppose Bush. Labeling someone a traitor because they oppose any president is as un-American as it gets.

Stop demonizing people who disagree with you. I did nothing at all to deserve being labeled a traitor. I've comported myself here at Gather with dignity and respect and treated you as I would wish to be treated: I have offered reasoned arguments based on verifiable facts, not fantasy and ad hominem attacks.

The fact of the matter is this: on Iraq, we were right and they were wrong. Admit it. Then accept it.

Denial is not a river in Egypt.

"I am sick and tired of being labeled a traitor simply because I oppose Bush. Labeling someone a traitor because they oppose any president is as un-American as it gets."

I agree, Sean-Paul, and notice it usually indicates the end (or near end) of discussion. If the alleged traitor/ex-patriot/whatever continues, he/she is then labeled a whiner, and things digress from there. I hope it isn't the case here, because I've enjoyed this conversation even though I haven't participated.

Here's a little bit of reality from the people who actually, you know, build the bombs. Check it out. It's worth your time.

Hello Sean-Paul,

That "traitor" label gets tossed around quite a bit, thanks to Ann Coulter and other pundits of the far right. It seems to gain usage whenever the opposing argument is losing, or runs out of things to say. The right cannot call Gen. Anthony Zinni a traitor. It just doesn't work.

Similarly, even mild criticism of Israel will bring cries of anti-Semitism. Yet, the primary detractors of the Israeli state are Semites, mainly Arabs. Gen. Zinni was accused of anti-Semitism for criticizing the neoconservatives, which is fully absurd.

Both the left and right love the "Nazi" and "Fascist" terms. In contemporary political discourse, adherents of some political ideologies tend to associate fascism with their enemies, or define it as the opposite of their own views. These words are now just slurs and are rarely used with any historical basis and when they start to enter the stream of discourse, the discussion is over.

Carl: let's be very, very clear about something: I didn't bring up any of the language you cite. Look through all of my comments here on this thread and others. I simply don't engage in that kind of debate. So, please, while I realize you are trying to be even handed here, don't be. I didn't start this and it's not fair to include me in some kind of ''even the lkeft and right do it' comment. I didn't do and don't.

I've stuck to facts and worthy citations from mostly unbiased sources. And I not goign to curly up meekly and go away when someone implies or outright states I am a traitor or anti-patriotic. Not. Going. To. Happen.

Hello Sean-Paul,

I don't think anything in my previous post suggests that you did. I admit though, that I have digressed far from our original topic and apologize for any misunderstanding.

Carl, no, you didn't suggest that I did. I just wanted it to be crystal clear as to how this happened. And yes, we have veered far from the original topic, so let's get back to it.

Someone in this thread said that no one was talking about the nulcear option, I agreed, reluctantly, because there was no independent confirmation of Sy Hersh's claims. Now there is.

Nukes simply aren't an option.

If I can stay off topic a moment, I would like to respond to something Mimi said waaay back there regarding speaking with in Iran. I think we could each run to any country in the world right now and come back with someone who would support our individual positions. The whole world seems divided from what I hear, the same as we are in this country.

Hello Sandy,

I have met numerous Iranians over the years, but they were mostly in exile, so I would not expect them to be objective about the current Iran.

Good point, Carl. And the ones I've known were not in exile, and would be equally as biased. These are important things to take into consideration when weighing opinions of others. For example, I know many Cubans who are disappointed in what they've found here yet hear from others with opposite feelings. I think it depends on what that individual values, just as it does with us. I value individual freedom and assurance everyone will have what they need, while someone else values hanging on to every dollar he makes. I'll find the Iraqis who would rather have their homes intact and family members alive than what has happened in their country, and someone else will find the ones who wanted Hussein out at any cost. We could all come back with personal accounts and petitions to support our positions. For me, the important part is applying my principles to the issues, not looking for personal endorsements from others.