Support NeoGAF

[thehypocrite]

If only there were a neighboring country that has a feud with Iran that we could use as a proxy to combat Iran.

What's funny or hilarious about a potential war?

 

[Kosmo]

If you want to know why Iran is the way it is or how the world really works (at least from a US perspective), you should read this book.

 

[speculawyer]

50% of China's oil passes through that Strait, and China's economy is obviously heavily dependent on the USA having oil to keep itself going.

China will hate this as much as the US, Russia on the other hand will support this.

The entire global economy will have a meltdown if the shit hits the fan. If the straights of Hormuz was closed, you may end up paying $10/gallon. Virtually every person on the planet will be affected. Certainly Russia will make a lot of money but it is probably not worth the amount of turmoil it will entail.

 

[JaseMath]

Good - let's finally get this 2012 apocalypse thing rolling!

 

[speculawyer]

What's funny or hilarious about a potential war?

What is funny is that we had a war that may have made this war more likely.

If you can't laugh at it you may be crying about it.

 

[pestul]

Good - let's finally get this 2012 apocalypse thing rolling!

I wonder what the odds are of us actually blowing ourselves up next year are..

1 in 200? better?

 

[Vilix]

one thing that drives me mad about this whole thing is how Iran is portrayed as some Nazi Germany 2.0, wanting to "wipe out Israel" and massacre Jews. that is a blatant fucking lie and when i see a monster like Michelle Bachmann on TV perpetrating that lie without anyone challenging her on that lie, i just want to snap. she deserves to be humiliated and cast out from society.

do the "born again" Israel-fetishist Americans who would support attacking Iran on the hysterical "they hate Jews" premise know that Iran itself actually has a Jewish minority, many synagogues, and even a Jewish parliament member? if they hated Jews so much you would think they would have massacred their own already and burnt down some synagogues, right?

if America starts bombing Tehran, will they at least shed a tear when a synagogue or another Jewish center is hit?

it also doesn't help when the iranian president keeps saying death to isreal and that the holocaust didn't happen. but whatever.

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

I know your going to brush aside that IAEA report but it still exists.

And you did answer my statement if why aren´t the completly open and play the bigger man on their nuclear program if its peaceful? Show the world that they are getting bullied.

Who would you expect to give a shit if the US bullies Iran?

 

[goomba]

it also doesn't help when the iranian president keeps saying death to isreal and that the holocaust didn't happen. but whatever.

But he hasn't said either of those things.

 

[speculawyer]

If you want to know why Iran is the way it is or how the world really works (at least from a US perspective), you should read this book.

I'm surprised that you, of all people, read that book. Your politics seem to endorse the practices that he confesses to.

 

[Choke on the Magic]

But he hasn't said either of those things.

Oh is this going to be the translation arguement?

 

[speculawyer]

I wonder what the odds are of us actually blowing ourselves up next year are..

1 in 200? better?

Nuclear blow up? Zero.

Some actual physical conflict with Iran? . . . I continue to think it is very low since everyone on all sides will be fucked if there is a conflict. No winners. This is all just brinksmanship but both sides will back down, IMHO. But we are all really fucked if a serious conflict erupts. This is no Iraq war.

 

[Joel Was Right]

And they could have opened their program up fully.... Economic sanctions are a deserving response to a country that is building nukes in violation of the NPT.

What do you mean by violation?

 

[pestul]

Nuclear blow up? Zero.

Some actual physical conflict with Iran? . . . I continue to think it is very low since everyone on all sides will be fucked if there is a conflict. No winners. This is all just brinksmanship but both sides will back down, IMHO. But we are all really fucked if a serious conflict erupts. This is no Iraq war.

I would agree essentially zero statistically.. but come on now, you must at least give it a 1/4 of 1% chance just that nuclear weapons exist. All it takes is one accident really.

 

[Ikael]

Some thoughts on the issue:

- There's already an undercover war against Iran: hacker attacks, drones, spies, terrorist proxy groups... most of the actions have been as effective, if not more, than the so much touted aerial campaign. Say Iranian nuclear scientists having "car accidents", or the whole Stuxnet virus affair. This is what the CIA does, and it does it damn well. Why the hell would you tilt the warfare into a more open campaign? for shit and giggles?

- The whole "suicide regime" theory about how the Iranian republic would be willing to self-destruct in order to destroy its enemies (Israel) is stupidity of the highest order. Look at their leaders. They are living the good life, like any good tyrant, not to mention that the Iran's political system decentralizes decisions way more than any other totalitarian regimes, thus preventing the more extreme factions to take over. Also, If an even more crazy, shitty regime like North Korea hasn't blow up itself yet, noone would do.

- Saudi Arabia won't get directly involved on a direct confrontation against Iran, but they would love, LOVE for the US (or anyone else but them) to start a war against Iran. I bet that they are lobbing the US congress hawk as hard, if not harder than the Israelis.

- The more extreme (read: retarded) factions of Israel wants a war, yet any Israeli with an ounce of patriotism knows that open conflict against Iran, or even an aerial bombing campaign, would spell disaster for the whole ME, not to mention the many, many ties between the financial and military elite of the two countries.

- Whenever I hear a Republican talking about Iran (sans Ron Paul), I want to puke violently. Are they retarded? Mentally impaired? Do they believe the shit they are spouting? Do they really, really want to poke a hornet nest with their dicks? Do they think that such a war would benefit the US in any shape or form? Are they moles paid in Renmibis?

- The Islamic Republic is actually shooting theirselves on the foot with the nuclear arm race. While it will act as a safeguard against direct US intervention, it will put an even harder strain into their economy. It will be very, very hard to sell to the farmers that live off subsidies and dependants of the "Islamic charity" the notion that they are going to loose their goverment handouts so Iran can has a nuclear weapon.

- Noone in their sane mind would want an open war near the Ormuz straight. Half the world oil supplies goes trought there, and neither China nor Russia would be too happy about it.

- I've talked with many Iranians, and the mood there is that the regime is on its last straws, and the sactions are working, and yes, it is imposing a terrible toll on the popullation. People are kinda torn up between who they dislike more, if the sactions, their goverment, or the US. Also, everyone is terrified because like any tyrannical regime, they have rammed up the repression considerabily due to desperation, not to mention the uncertainity after Khomeini's death (which many think that it will happen soon). Everyone is on a "stand still" position, terrified and petrified with what the future might bring (chaos, more likely).

 

[Wazzim]

I'm shocked that Iran actually considers such actions. One wrong move and Russia, China and the US turn the country into a parking lot. You especially don't want to fuck with Russia.

I don't think you have read that post correctly ;-) Russia will not mind them blocking the canal since they have their own oil to sell.

 

[Pollux]

I don't think you have read that post correctly ;-) Russia will not mind them blocking the canal since they have their own oil to sell.

US has oil to sell these days too, or so I hear.

While the US would win if it came to war nobody wants that because we would be so unbelievably fucked that it isn't even funny.

 

[Allard]

Nuclear blow up? Zero.

Some actual physical conflict with Iran? . . . I continue to think it is very low since everyone on all sides will be fucked if there is a conflict. No winners. This is all just brinksmanship but both sides will back down, IMHO. But we are all really fucked if a serious conflict erupts. This is no Iraq war.

If the oil sanctions go in place, I actually really do believe a form of physical combat is going to happen. Its the prey getting cornered, unless a regime change happens (A BIG change I might add, one that accepts the demands of the nuclear scuttling) I see it become increasingly likely they are going to lash out one way or another, if they see their economy and thus the countries prosperity go down the tubes, they will likely fuck over everyone else out of spite, that is of course unless an actual change happens which also has a likely chance with how severe the sanctions are becoming.

 

[Cromat]

The only reason Iran "needs" nuclear weapons is to perpetuate its regime. The ruling class in Iran knows that the only way of keeping control over their country in the long run is to have something that will deter anyone from ever thinking about destabilizing it.

Consider the following:

Would Saddam Hussein been ousted if he had nuclear weapons (which Israel prevented him form getting in the '80s)?
Would NATO have intervened in Libya if Gaddafi had nuclear weapons?
How would the current situation in Syria look if Assad had nuclear weapons (which again, was prevented by Israel in 2007)?

And on the other hand, we have North Korea. Arguably the most tyrannical country in the world, but surprisingly durable since it managed to extort the world with its successful nuclear weapons program. The regime there is as stable as ever.

The pattern is clear. Dictatorships need nuclear power in order to survive the 40 year mark in today's world. The Iranian leadership wants to preserve its hold on power. Their overt hatred of the US and Israel is a tool to gain influence in the Arab world (which worked spectacularly) and nothing more.

 

[el retorno]

Some thoughts on the issue:

- Saudi Arabia won't get directly involved on a direct confrontation against Iran, but they would love, LOVE for the US (or anyone else but them) to start a war against Iran. I bet that they are lobbing the US congress hawk as hard, if not harder than the Israelis.

It´s not just Saudi, pretty much all of them want their rival beaten down

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-saudis-iran

- The more extreme (read: retarded) factions of Israel wants a war, yet any Israeli with an ounce of patriotism knows that open conflict against Iran, or even an aerial bombing campaign, would spell disaster for the whole ME, not to mention the many, many ties between the financial and military elite of the two countries.

I think its the politicians who want a strike in Israel. I don´t think the military does because they know what it entails.

- Whenever I hear a Republican talking about Iran (sans Ron Paul), I want to puke violently. Are they retarded? Mentally impaired? Do they believe the shit they are spouting? Do they really, really want to poke a hornet nest with their dicks? Do they think that such a war would benefit the US in any shape or form? Are they moles paid in Renmibis?

I really think it has more to do with that they probably have neo-con´s advising them on foreign matters. I´d hope if god forbid they get elected their first intellegence briefing wakes them up.

- I've talked with many Iranians, and the mood there is that the regime is on its last straws, and the sactions are working, and yes, it is imposing a terrible toll on the popullation. People are kinda torn up between who they dislike more, if the sactions, their goverment, or the US. Also, everyone is terrified because like any tyrannical regime, they have rammed up the repression considerabily due to desperation, not to mention the uncertainity after Khomeini's death (which many think that it will happen soon). Everyone is on a "stand still" position, terrified and petrified with what the future might bring (chaos, more likely).

I´ve read things that say even know Iranian´s are one of the LEAST anti-american middle eastern countries. I think the oportunity exisits for a very good realationship with the west and a strong and infuential Iran if they would losen up on their retoric and their was some sort of regime change.

 

[el retorno]

The only reason Iran "needs" nuclear weapons is to perpetuate its regime. The ruling class in Iran knows that the only way of keeping control over their country in the long run is to have something that will deter anyone from ever thinking about destabilizing it.

Consider the following:

Would Saddam Hussein been ousted if he had nuclear weapons (which Israel prevented him form getting in the '80s)?
Would NATO have intervened in Libya if Gaddafi had nuclear weapons?
How would the current situation in Syria look if Assad had nuclear weapons (which again, was prevented by Israel in 2007)?

And on the other hand, we have North Korea. Arguably the most tyrannical country in the world, but surprisingly durable since it managed to extort the world with its successful nuclear weapons program. The regime there is as stable as ever.

The pattern is clear. Dictatorships need nuclear power in order to survive the 40 year mark in today's world. The Iranian leadership wants to preserve its hold on power. Their overt hatred of the US and Israel is a tool to gain influence in the Arab world (which worked spectacularly) and nothing more.

This is my main reason for the nothing off the table approach to avoiding nukes. People keep bringing up the fact that if they were the Iranian regime they´d want nukes. Or that they´d help prevent any outside intervention. Thats exactly why I DON´T want Iran getting nukes.

 

[theignoramus]

......Even an Iranian nuclear weapons capability is intolerable to the US and Israel, since even the mere threat and capability of Iran developing a nuclear weapon effects their [the US and Israel's] ability to deploy massive conventional force at will throughout the region.



http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68794_Page2.html#ixzz1gbqiHaHA

Juan Cole shares my opinion on the main problem the United States and Israel has with Iran's nuclear program.

The real problem for Israel and its allies is that Iran’s civilian enrichment program is potentially dual-use. If Iran can enrich uranium to 3.5 percent for nuclear reactor fuel, it could in theory use its centrifuges to enrich to 95 percent for a bomb. Israel and the US don’t want Iran even to have the possibility of making a bomb if Tehran someday chooses to, since that would knock Israel down a peg on the Middle East pecking order.

what's perceived as a threat isnt simply Iran constructing a nuclear warhead, it is equally unacceptable if Iran is left with the choice of actually doing this. contrary to the media reporting on that heavily politicized IAEA report that came out a few weeks ago, there is no new or compelling evidence the mullahs are on a crash course for nukes. But what is abundantly clear is that they want the infrastructure in place to assemble bombs quickly if they so choose.
This kind of nuclear posture isnt an outright violation of the NPT, (the NPT mandate is restricted to the prevention of nuclear weapons production and nuclear weapons proliferation) but it violates the spirit of the treaty. it's sort of like agreeing to follow the international protocols of war, but retaining the right to back out of your treaty obligations if you feel like it.

 

[scorcho]

This is my main reason for the nothing off the table approach to avoiding nukes. People keep bringing up the fact that if they were the Iranian regime they´d want nukes. Or that they´d help prevent any outside intervention. Thats exactly why I DON´T want Iran getting nukes.

why? it seems rather clear that a country and regime in that position would want nuclear weapons for defensive reasons.

 

[el retorno]

why? it seems rather clear that a country and regime in that position would want nuclear weapons for defensive reasons.

I know they would want them. And I don´t want them to have it first, no new counties should have nukes and the countries that have them should be reducing them and second I don´t want a regime like Iran to have a tool of deterence. Not when that are the religious authoritarian state they are today.

 

[Cromat]

why? it seems rather clear that a country and regime in that position would want nuclear weapons for defensive reasons.

The problem is that its mainly defense against its own people.

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

The only reason Iran "needs" nuclear weapons is to perpetuate its regime. The ruling class in Iran knows that the only way of keeping control over their country in the long run is to have something that will deter anyone from ever thinking about destabilizing it.

Consider the following:

The more logical justification for wanting nuclear weapons would be to avoid an invasion, there's not much of a chance of violent revolution within Iran. Consider that a country on either side of Iran has been invaded (one for no real reason) and that Saudis and Israelis have been heavily pushing for military action against Iran.

 

[scorcho]

I know they would want them. And I don´t want them to have it first, no new counties should have nukes and the countries that have them should be reducing them and second I don´t want a regime like Iran to have a tool of deterence. Not when that are the religious authoritarian state they are today.

were Iran to gain deterrence, the nuclear states surrounding it would likewise use the threat of massive retaliatory strikes to keep the regime on good behavior. while i agree that further proliferation isn't ideal, there is no realistic military option to completely decapitate their nuclear capacity that wouldn't drag the US into another quagmire.

The problem is that its mainly defense against its own people.

I see it as defense against the US. Iran saw firsthand how quickly American political elites shifted from Afghanistan to Iraq. Neoconservatives saw Iraq as the start of a transformational period for the region, where the US topples unfriendly regimes and introduce democracy through violence and war.

 

[Cromat]

The more logical justification for wanting nuclear weapons would be to avoid an invasion, there's not much of a chance of violent revolution within Iran. Consider that a country on either side of Iran has been invaded (one for no real reason) and that Saudis and Israelis have been heavily pushing for military action against Iran.

Nuclear weapons allow them to continue to oppress their people without ever fearing outside intervention.

Secondly, the reason Israel is pushing for military action against Iran is that Iran has been consistently hostile to it for the last 30 years.
If you think about it logically, there is no real reason why Iran and Israel shouldn't have good relations. They have no border disputes and Iran is not an Arab state, and the two countries had excellent relations before 1979.

The whole "Iran is afraid of Israel" argument doesn't hold water since the only reason Israel is a threat to Iran is that Iran chose to become an enemy of Israel.

 

[beast786]

Not when Iran displays US flags with skulls instead of stars.
I say go to war because China will join to help and they need to go down as well before too late.

Speaking of good reasons to go to war.

 

[theignoramus]

The only reason Iran "needs" nuclear weapons is to perpetuate its regime. The ruling class in Iran knows that the only way of keeping control over their country in the long run is to have something that will deter anyone from ever thinking about destabilizing it.

Consider the following:

Would Saddam Hussein been ousted if he had nuclear weapons (which Israel prevented him form getting in the '80s)?
Would NATO have intervened in Libya if Gaddafi had nuclear weapons?
How would the current situation in Syria look if Assad had nuclear weapons (which again, was prevented by Israel in 2007)?

And on the other hand, we have North Korea. Arguably the most tyrannical country in the world, but surprisingly durable since it managed to extort the world with its successful nuclear weapons program. The regime there is as stable as ever.

The pattern is clear. Dictatorships need nuclear power in order to survive the 40 year mark in today's world. The Iranian leadership wants to preserve its hold on power. Their overt hatred of the US and Israel is a tool to gain influence in the Arab world (which worked spectacularly) and nothing more.

nuclear weapons protect regimes from outside intervention. I havnt seen much compelling evidence that they can be wielded and projected effectively against internal opposition. The Soviet Union had thousands of nukes and it collapsed internally. President Musharraf of Pakistan resigned following much internal pressure.
A nuclear weapons state is bound by the same rules as a state without them; if the army turns against the regime or refuses to enforce its will, the regime's days are numbered.

 

[Cromat]

nuclear weapons protect regimes from outside intervention. I havnt seen much compelling evidence that they can be wielded and projected effectively against internal opposition. The Soviet Union had thousands of nukes and it collapsed internally. President Musharraf of Pakistan resigned following much internal pressure.
A nuclear weapons state is bound by the same rules as a state without them; if the army turns against the regime or refuses to enforce its will, the regime's days are numbered.

While I agree that non-democratic regimes in today's world are inherently unstable, A non-democratic state having nuclear weapons introduces a huge amount of uncertainty and risk into any situation. The collapse of the Soviet Union was an incredibly dangerous phase that resulted in the leakage of nuclear technology and materials to some very wrong hands. The fact that Iran is a theocracy that might in its final stages be motivated by faith rather than by interests adds yet another layer of uncertainty.

Put simply, if Iran had nuclear weapons, the interest of international community would shift overnight from supporting a change in Iran to favoring stability (see: Pakistan, North Korea). Its conceivable that countries like the US would actually be driven by fear to supporting the Iranian regime against any change.

 

[theignoramus]

Nuclear weapons allow them to continue to oppress their people without ever fearing outside intervention.

Secondly, the reason Israel is pushing for military action against Iran is that Iran has been consistently hostile to it for the last 30 years.
If you think about it logically, there is no real reason why Iran and Israel shouldn't have good relations. They have no border disputes and Iran is not an Arab state, and the two countries had excellent relations before 1979.

The whole "Iran is afraid of Israel" argument doesn't hold water since the only reason Israel is a threat to Iran is that Iran chose to become an enemy of Israel.

Iran's revolutionary ideology has sharply anti-colonial underpinnings. (which is unsurprising, given the history of colonial meddling in Iran)
As an example of this, after the 79 revolution, it broke off relations with South Africa and imposed a trade boycott against that country, which didnt end until the end of the apartheid regime.

Prior to the Iranian Revolution in 1979, South Africa and Iran maintained formal relations at the level of Consulates-General as well as good relations in the fields of trade, science and technology, defence, medicine, energy and mining. After the revolution in that country, Iran severed relations with South Africa in February 1979 and imposed a total trade boycott against South Africa by the promulgation of an Act in the Majlis (Iranian Parliament).

ideologically, the islamic republic is naturally opposed to Israel's occupations, but more critically, Israel's confrontation with the Arab world provide Iran an opening to export its revolutionary philosophy and project its influence, which it has done with phenomenal success in Lebanon.
you have to see this through the prism of the Islamic republic`s interests, which has its own ideological agenda.

 

[scorcho]

While I agree that non-democratic regimes in today's world are inherently unstable, A non-democratic state having nuclear weapons introduces a huge amount of uncertainty and risk into any situation. The collapse of the Soviet Union was an incredibly dangerous phase that resulted in the leakage of nuclear technology and materials to some very wrong hands. The fact that Iran is a theocracy that might in its final stages be motivated by faith rather than by interests adds yet another layer of uncertainty.

I don't agree. Since the Revolution Iran's regime has proven to be extremely inward looking, eager to solidify their hold on power and careful not to extend themselves too far internationally to the point where externally-forced regime change is likely. They're the model 'rational actors' in foreign policy realism.

 

[Cromat]

Iran's revolutionary ideology has sharply anti-colonial underpinnings. (which is unsurprising, given the history of colonial meddling in Iran)
As an example of this, after the 79 revolution, it broke off relations with South Africa and imposed a trade boycott against that country, which didnt end until the end of the apartheid regime.



ideologically, the islamic republic is naturally opposed to Israel's occupations, but more critically, Israel's confrontation with the Arab world provide Iran an opening to export its revolutionary philosophy and project its influence, which it has done with phenomenal success in Lebanon.

Well that's basically what I said. The 'conflict' between Iran and Israel was started by Iran for ideological reasons, and it could (theoretically) be ended overnight. There are no real issues to resolve, just ideologically and politically-driven animosity. Therefore the notion of Iran having to guard itself against Israel is silly, it's all about gaining influence in the Arab world

I don't agree. Since the Revolution Iran's regime has proven to be extremely inward looking, eager to solidify their hold on power and careful not to extend themselves too far internationally to the point where external regime change is likely. They're the model 'rational actors' in foreign policy realism.

I actually completely agree that the Iranian regime is a rational actor. I don't think that Iran is run by "nutjobs", it's simply run by bad/misguided religiously-motivated people.
What I was arguing was that although Iran's present actions are rational, the more "messianic" or truly-religious elements in it could act in an unpredictable way when faced with oblivion. It's another risk thrown into the system, and another reason for supporting stability over prosperity and human dignity in Iran in the future.

 

[theignoramus]

Put simply, if Iran had nuclear weapons, the interest of international community would shift overnight from supporting a change in Iran to favoring stability (see: Pakistan, North Korea). Its conceivable that countries like the US would actually be driven by fear to supporting the Iranian regime against any change.

Im not convinced the way the US and its allies have gone about supporting change in Iran is even helpful to iran`s moderates. the period in the 90s when the US and Iran were engaged in productive dialogue did not involve threats of all options remaining on the table. it involved an initiative for cultural exchange.
maybe switzerland and other EU states can support and facilitate the kind of democratic change sane people want in Iran, but Im of the opinion the US and UK`s hands are way, waaay too soiled at this point to positively influence internal politics in Iran.

 

[Ikael]

Nukes are deterrence against external nations, not against internal unstability (see also: the URSS collapse). The longevity of the North Korean regime has way more to do with its distopian police state and China's backing than the nukes theirselves.

Also, TheIgnoramus knows his shit *respectful nod*

I´ve read things that say even know Iranian´s are one of the LEAST anti-american middle eastern countries. I think the oportunity exisits for a very good realationship with the west and a strong and infuential Iran if they would losen up on their retoric and their was some sort of regime change.

Iran was US's best buddy on the region before the revolution, they had an even closer relationship than with Israel at the time. The whole Israel - US axis in the middle east only started once their ally of old (pre - Jomeini Iran) was no more (yup, Jomeini trew the US into the open arms of Israel. Ironic, isn't it?).

And yep, a huge part of its population are heavily westernized, albeit "modernized" and "educated" would be a far more accurate description. I am pretty sure that a non - Islamic Republic of Iran would be a really good US ally, and a great country to boot. But open war would mean that the whole country would rally together against the invasors, regarding of their feelings towards the goverment. Nothing unites more than a common enemy, and the spectre of colonialism weights heavily on the Iranian nationalist psyche too.

 

[Escape Goat]

The warning came after Iran's navy chief Habibollah Sayyari told Iran's English language Press TV that "closing the Strait of Hormuz for Iran's armed forces is really easy ... or as Iranians say it will be easier than drinking a glass of water."

Thats one clunky metaphor. Get with it, Iran.

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

Thats one clunky metaphor. Get with it, Iran.

Idioms and metaphors usually get wonky in translation.

 

[GillianSeed79]

- The whole "suicide regime" theory about how the Iranian republic would be willing to self-destruct in order to destroy its enemies (Israel) is stupidity of the highest order. Look at their leaders. They are living the good life, like any good tyrant, not to mention that the Iran's political system decentralizes decisions way more than any other totalitarian regimes, thus preventing the more extreme factions to take over. Also, If an even more crazy, shitty regime like North Korea hasn't blow up itself yet, noone would do.

Pretty much this. I'm sure they think once they get a nuke no one will invade them.

I just think it's kind of ridiculous that we have no formal diplomatic relations with Iran. If anything it could at least diffuse some of the paranoia on both sides. The whole lumping them in the "Axis of Evil" thing didn't help either at a time when it looked like reformists had actually made inroads in the government.

Our relationship with Iran reminds me of our relationship with the Soviet Union pre-Cuban missile crisis where each side would interpret what the other did as a hostile action and respond in kind, ratcheting up tensions for a conflict neither side wanted in the first place.

 

[Ether_Snake]

I wonder where China and Russia would stand.

Would they just abstain if anything was voted at the security council, like with Lybia? If it is done without a UN mandate, would China and or Russia guarantee Iran with protection in case of an attack?

 

[Something Wicked]

Nuclear weapons allow them to continue to oppress their people without ever fearing outside intervention.

Secondly, the reason Israel is pushing for military action against Iran is that Iran has been consistently hostile to it for the last 30 years.
If you think about it logically, there is no real reason why Iran and Israel shouldn't have good relations. They have no border disputes and Iran is not an Arab state, and the two countries had excellent relations before 1979.

The whole "Iran is afraid of Israel" argument doesn't hold water since the only reason Israel is a threat to Iran is that Iran chose to become an enemy of Israel.

You're being too logical for this topic on this forum.

But anyway, it's true that if Iran gets nukes- the current authoritarian regime will exist for decades longer.

Also, as far as Israeli-Iranian relations go, I remember this story being pretty funny: Iran soccer body sends Israeli team New Year`s greeting
Tehran official claims missive sent by mistake; Israel official wishes Iran a happy soccer year in return.

The Iranian football federation sent its Israeli counterpart a new year's greeting on Thursday, Army Radio reported, in what a Tehran official described as a mistake.

Mohammad Ali Ardebili, director of foreign relations for the Football Federation of the Islamic Republic of Iran, told Army Radio that he had not intended to send the missive to the Israel Football Association.

"It is a greeting sent to every country in the world," Ardebili said. He quickly then inquired: "Are you talking from Israel? I can't speak with you. It's a mistake, it's a mistake."

The greeting was received in Israel by the head of the Israel Football Association's legal department, Amir Navon.

"He came into my office asking me if I thought it was a mistake," said body spokesman Gil Levanoni. "So I told him that I didn't know, but that we should send in a reply."

Levanoni and Navon said they replied to the greeting with a "happy new year to all the good people of Iran," and said: "We also added a wink."

"We wrote them that we hoped that they would have a happy soccer year," Levanoni added."

 

[Volimar]

Isn't it time the US takes a more passive stance in the region and let the nations that actually have a dog in the race take the lead? We're Israel's ally, not its parent. I'm tired of our oil and business interests having this much clout over our policy.

 

[speculawyer]

Pretty much this. I'm sure they think once they get a nuke no one will invade them.

I just think it's kind of ridiculous that we have no formal diplomatic relations with Iran. If anything it could at least diffuse some of the paranoia on both sides. The whole lumping them in the "Axis of Evil" thing didn't help either at a time when it looked like reformists had actually made inroads in the government.

Seriously.

At the start of the Afghan war, Iran told us that they would help return any pilots shot down that landed in their territory. They wanted good relations. There was a moment where a nice grand bargain could have been negotiated. But the Bushies spurned them. Then the Iraq war went sour and we lost all leverage. We became mired in two quagmire wars.

Obama made overtures to try to do a bargain, but Iran wasn't receptive. That is really too bad. Things could be much better right now.

 

[beastmode]

not that i want any more nuclear weapons existing anywhere on this earth, it's ridiculous to expect iran not to try and create nuclear weapons after the u.s. has shown that they are the only effective deterrent to invasion.

 

[speculawyer]

I think this is a message to someone.

AP sources: US to sell F-15s to Saudi Arabia
By LOLITA C. BALDOR and MATTHEW LEE | AP – 1 hr 24 mins ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. officials say the Obama administration is poised to announce the sale of nearly $30 billion worth of F-15 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia.
Officials say the deal will send 84 new fighter jets and upgrades for 70 more, for a total of $29.4 billion.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the sale has not been made public.
About a year ago, the administration got the go-ahead from Congress for a 10-year, $60 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia that included F-15s, helicopters and a broad array of missiles, bombs and delivery systems, as well as radar warning systems and night-vision goggles.

The plan raised concerns particularly from pro-Israeli lawmakers, but U.S. officials reassured Congress that Israel's military edge would not be undercut by the sale.

 

[Kinitari]

You're being too logical for this topic on this forum.

But anyway, it's true that if Iran gets nukes- the current authoritarian regime will exist for decades longer.

Also, as far as Israeli-Iranian relations go, I remember this story being pretty funny: Iran soccer body sends Israeli team New Year`s greeting
Tehran official claims missive sent by mistake; Israel official wishes Iran a happy soccer year in return.

Let it.

It seems the only justification of denying Iran nukes/nuclear facilities is a painted up fear of a regime that really, all things said and done, is no threat to Israel, the US, any European... or lets just say it, any country at all. I don't think there is any indication they are going to attack anyone.

 

[theignoramus]

Binyahim Netanyahu's own intelligence chief caught undermining his "crazy mullah" bullshit.

nuclear-armed Iran wouldn't necessarily constitute a threat to Israel's continued existence, Mossad chief Tamir Pardo reportedly hinted earlier this week.

On Tuesday evening, Pardo addressed an audience of about 100 Israeli ambassadors. According to three ambassadors present at the briefing, the intelligence chief said that Israel was using various means to foil Iran's nuclear program and would continue to do so, but if Iran actually obtained nuclear weapons, it would not mean the destruction of the State of Israel.
"What is the significance of the term existential threat?" the ambassadors quoted Pardo as asking. "Does Iran pose a threat to Israel? Absolutely. But if one said a nuclear bomb in Iranian hands was an existential threat, that would mean that we would have to close up shop and go home. That's not the situation. The term existential threat is used too freely.

This is the second Mossad chief to say this. Ehud Barak has said it too.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/mossad-chief-a-nuclear-iran-isn-t-necessarily-a-existential-threat-1.404227
while the "irrational, suicide state" theory and allusions to Hitler was always vulgar propaganda for European and American consumption, it's nice to hear Israeli heavyweights dismiss it time and time again.

In other news:

The Obama administration is trying to assure Israel privately that it would strike Iran militarily if Tehran’s nuclear program crosses certain “red lines”—while attempting to dissuade the Israelis from acting unilaterally

When Defense Secretary Leon Panetta opined earlier this month that an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities could “consume the Middle East in a confrontation and a conflict that we would regret,” the Israelis went ballistic behind the scenes. Michael Oren, Israel’s ambassador to Washington, lodged a formal diplomatic protest known as a demarche. And the White House was thrust into action, reassuring the Israelis that the administration had its own “red lines” that would trigger military action against Iran, and that there is no need for Jerusalem to act unilaterally.

Look at this absurdity. A foreign government lodges a protest against the US Defense Secretary talking about the consequences of war with Iran.

The lack of trust between the Israeli and American leaders on Iran has been a sub-rosa tension in the relationship since 2009. Three U.S. military officials confirm to The Daily Beast that analysts attached to the Office of the Secretary of Defense are often revising estimates trying to predict what events in Iran would trigger Prime Minister Netanyahu to authorize a military attack on the country’s nuclear infrastructure. Despite repeated requests going back to 2009, Netanyahu’s government has not agreed to ask the United States for permission or give significant advanced warning of any pending strike.

some friend.

Matthew Kroenig, who served as special adviser on Iran to the Office of the Secretary of Defense between July 2010 and July 2011, offered some of the possible “red lines” for a military strike in a recent Foreign Affairs article he wrote. He argued that the U.S should attack Iran’s facilities if Iran expels international nuclear weapons inspectors, begins enriching its stockpiles of uranium to weapons-grade levels of 90 percent, or installs advanced centrifuges at its main uranium-enrichment facility in Qom.

Part of the issue now between the United States and Israel are disagreements over such intelligence. The Israelis and the U.S. both believe that Iran suspended its work on weaponization, or the research and testing on how to fit an atomic explosion inside a warhead, in 2003 shortly after the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

The Israelis, however, say the Iranians started that work again in 2005, according to Israeli officials and Ya’alon, who said this in his speech on Christmas Eve. The 2007 and 2011 U.S. national intelligence estimates for Iran say this weaponization work remains suspended.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/28/u-s-israel-discuss-triggers-for-bombing-iran-s-nuclear-infrastructure.html

 

[The Dutch Slayer]

This is getting worse and worse

Already posted?
http://theaviationist.com/2011/12/29/hormuz-flattop/

“U.S. supercarrier detected by an Iranian spyplane near the Strait of Hormuz”. Trivial as that could be the last thing that plane will ever detect. December 29, 2011


According to the news reported by the Iranian news agency IRNA, an Iranian warplane involved in the Velayat-90 exercise has identified a U.S. flattop near the Strait of Hormuz.

“This shows that the Iranian Navy keeps a close eye on the movements of all ultra-regional forces in the region and checks their activities,” said the Iranian Navy’s Deputy Commander Rear Admiral Mahmoud Mousavi.

The news came the day after the U.S. 5th Fleet, based at Manama in Bahrain, said it would not tolerate any disruption to the freedom of navigation in the area after Iran earlier threatened it will block the Strait of Hormuz if sanctions against Tehran are toughened.

Some western media have added that the Iranian spyplane took some photographs of the U.S. aircraft carrier it detected.

My first comment to the news was that if the situation was really serious, that would be the last thing that the Iranian spyplane will ever detect for various reasons.

First of all, a carrier air wing made of about 60 aircraft. For example, when I visited the USS Nimitz involved in Operation Enduring Freedom in 2009, the CVW-11 was made by 20 F/A-18C (VFA-86 and VFA-97), 12 F/A-18Es (VFA-14), 12 F/A-18Fs (VFA-41), 4 E/A-6Bs (VAQ-135), 4 E-2Cs (VAW-117), 4 SH-60Fs and 3 HH-60Fs (HS-6), a “mix” that, with minor differences, can be used as a reference.

Hence, among the aircraft included in an embarked air wing (worth a small autonomous air force capable to perform a wide variety of missions), there are also some E-2C Hawkeyes, aircraft that can perform Air Space Management and Tanker Coordination tasks, to manage and deconflict planes (as done for traffic flying in the Afghan airspace during OEF tasks) and provide the “picture” to the ship’s CDC (Combat Direction Center) that can be literally interconnected to any other AEW (Airborne Early Warning) platform.

The CDC is responsible for the tactical management of all the missions launched by the carrier, by means of fighter and mission controllers whose radar screens can be fed with the tracks discovered at long distance by the Hawkeyes, one aircraft of those is always flying and ready to guide interceptors (both on alert and flying) to the identification of intruders that it can detect from several hundred miles away.

Then, a U.S. Nimitz-class nuclear aircraft carrier does not travel alone (as recently done by the Chinese trainer Varyag) but it is the flagship of a Carrier Strike Group that usually includes two AEGIS destroyers, a Ticonderoga class missile cruiser, a Perry-class frigate and, although they are not officially attached to the CSG, a nuclear submarine and various supporting vessel, whose task is, among the others, to defend the flattops from enemy aerial or maritime attack.

As you may understand, such a huge force does not go unnoticed. Neither it wants to as its purpose is to deploy the air wing wherever it is needed for a Crisis Support Operation or to “flew muscles”.

So, unless the news is that “an ex-US RQ-170 stealthy drone now remotely controlled by the Iranian military” has identified the USS Stennis approaching the Strait of Hormuz, the fact that a spyplane has spotted or even photographed from a long distance an American nuclear flattop is absolutely trivial.

And will not change the outcome of an eventual war.

 

[Marleyman]

If you want to know why Iran is the way it is or how the world really works (at least from a US perspective), you should read this book.

I have been meaning to read this book; saw him in an interview and was fascinated and promptly pissed off about what he used to do and who he worked for.

 

[Guardian Bob]

Isn't there always a US Navy presence near the Strait of Hormuz? It shouldn't be a shock to Iran. Also, I imagine hiding a supercarrier isn't easy to do.