IAP Political Forum

The author of this article argues what I have said here on this forum time and time again. The pros of opening talks with Iran far outweigh the cons and seems to be the only rational US foreign policy towards Iran. Your views. Let's discuss!

http://niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=00328

Barack Obama supports diplomatic engagement first with Iran, then action if that doesn't resolve matters and I am for Obama, so..

BTW, the U.N. Security Council has just passed a third round of sanctions against Iran.

With 8 months left to the US elections Bush's government may still decide to do do something carzy to undermine Baracks campaign. Afterall it was Barack who advocated direct talks.

There are still deep rooted mistrusts between the two nations based on the past and Barack seems a bit of a fresh air with a new policy.   

The article hits the key points very well.  I have also argued that the #1 foreign policy objective for the US should be normalization of ties with Iran and indeed a hands-off but sympathetic and supportive role in fostering Iranian democracy.  Iran is going to change, and probably sooner than later.  When that happens, we want the elected government to be open to friendly relations with the US.  I think the author is a little over-the-top with considering Iranians to be "pro-American" but they are certainly not anti-American (as a whole).  American culture is making huge gains in Iran and I think we will advance our own interests far better with iPods and XBox's  than with bombs and bullets.

The author leaves out three key points however.  I think the youth of the Iranian population makes it natuarally more willing to work with the US (for political reforms).  Of course, attacking them will also make them more likely to resist violently than an aging population.  Second, Iran has two strikes against it in the Muslim world and Middle East at large.  First, it is primarily Shiite, which is less than 20% of the world-wide Muslim population.  This doesn't guarantee conflict with other Muslims, but that shadow does loom ominously over their heads.  The second strike is that Iranians are not Arabs.  Again, this isn't recipe for disaster in and of itself, but it gives Iran some incentive for having powerful friends just in case relations with its neighbors takes a nosedive.  The last point is that Iran sits in a precarious position.  Iran's resources are quite important to many nations, but with Russia, China, India and Pakistan all uncomfortably close, one has to believe that Iran keeps a careful eye on its friends and its enemies.

We can offer a lot to Iran.  The most important thing we offer is credibility.  For some reason, we seem to be the only single country that can knight another nation and deem them credible.  This is what Iran wants more than just about anything.  And interestingly enough, it is what can bail us out of Iraq.  If we get Iran to work with us and promise well-deserved praise for helping to stabilize Iraq, we accomplish our mission there, and Iran gets the credibility it is desperately seeking. 

It really seems like a perfect match.  So we have to deal with the Iranian government for a while.  Big whoop - we've dealt with far worse before.  Also, if you are an Israeli, you have to feel better if Iran and America are on good terms.  To me, this is a relationship that Iran knows would be destroyed if they did something to Israel.  I bet they would tone down the rhetoric if they knew it would keep Washington doing business with Iran..........

That is a very scary scenario-one can never tell with Bush and the neocons.

OswaldTheOsprey

Thanks for that link, kactus. I favorited it.

I've agreed with and heavily supported the more rational people here about how to deal with Iran. But more importantly, I'm glad the lot of us can see how Iran will, in just a few years, become a natrual ally of the US. It will make our current "alliance" (if you wanna call it that) with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia look like pale in comparison.

It'll also make any future Middle East Peace agreement all the more possible (since Iran won't be so disruptive to the process).


Exactly. They have a relatively young, moderate population of teenagers and young 20-somethings. We should be cultivating this generation - and have, for the most part, already started. They wear blue-jeans and gucci sun glasses and high heels and it would be an absolute waste to take this NATRUAL (this word can't be stressed enough) affection and work with it.

I saved an edition of "The Economist" that broke Iran down so well, I couldn't stand to throw it away. I'll share some details if I can find it, but it may be packed away (figures ::) ).


All true.

And to add to your last point about Russia, India and China - China (especially) and India are looking for sources of petroleum and if we can coax Iran away, it'll be one more blow to them, which will help us in the future as China and India quickly rise to "Super Power" status.

Plus, if we can lighten the influence that Russia has on the region by taking Iran out of its pocket, it'll set back Russia several years as well.

An alliance with Iran could do a massive blow to our "enemies" while strengthening our position in the world. We have such an oppurtunity here and it angers me to no end that Bush isn't even TRYING to take advantage of it.


It's a win-win situation, and aside from Akmenijhad, the country as a whole, including those in leadership positions, seem willing to at least negotiate.

We just can't go in with "mandates" and "conditions", imposing our will and telling them they can't enrich uranium. It eliminates their one bargaining chip. It's what North Korea did and it paid off for them... in spades. They get all the oil they can choke down (while continuing to counterfeit US currency) and we get...

...

...

...

... what did we get?


Not to sound like Untouchables or anything... but Israel would probably be miffed by any realtionship we can have with Iran. I'd imagine they would feel pretty... obsolete...

I really wish the government would wake and take a look at the one foreign policy achievement they have: North Korea. Before we talked with them they were testing nukes, after we talked with them we send a huge delegation and actually have what seems to be a successful cultural exchange. Why we don't talk to all of our enemies like we have done with N Korea, is unbelievable.

Not only did they test a nuclear device, but they also test fired a long range missile that could (if it didn't fail) strike the west coast of the US. Also, if Israel's bombing of that target in Syria was legitimate, then so was the premise that North Korea gave Syria nuclear weapon technology.

I mean, if ANYone deserved to be invaded and have a regime changed, it was North Korea.

Imagine if Iran even did ONE of those things, let alone all THREE...

The hypocricy is BLINDING!

Different place. Far, far different situation. Iran has already threatened Israel with annihilation and you know Israel won't let that happen. You'd better hope that Obama is in power in 2010 because that is the estimated time that Iran will have a nuclear warhead.  ;)

People say this... but I fail to see why.

Is it cause North Korea has China? We're more relunctant to push the envelope? Iran has... Russia (kinda).

But why is it so different?

...

Don't answer that. I'm gonna make a new thread, cause I wanna hear what other have to say. I'll link it here when I decide what forum I'm putting it in.


Well, I do want Obama... and this is a major reason. Clinton really screwed up when she made the Iranian Republic Guard a terrorist orginization - not cause I don't think they deserve the title, but because it expanded the president's ability to further screw up the Middle East.

Plus health care and a few other reasons - but his foreign policy is the most rational.

Also, according to this study, they say it's "very unlikely" Iran will have enough uranim for a nuclear bomb by "late 2009". I imagine it will be several more years before they have a successful (emphasis here) re-entry vehicle capable of reaching the US.

Well where do I start many responses here and thanks to everyone for sharing their thoughts.

Crypto,
Whilst I agree with you in essence with what you said I think this issue of the iranian nuclear power is blown way out of the proportion. While I don't agree with the iranian government and many of his policies and I have made this clear on many previous occasions unfortunately current stand off with the West and the support of the US, UK and France primarily of sanctions has primarily affected the economy and the average iranians on the high streets who are far remote from the nuclear issue and are discussing the high inflation and unemployment. It leaves them disillusioned with the west supporting such punitive actions that primarily affects them.


Whilst there has been opportunities between these two countries to resolve some of the other issues in the Middle East that opportunity has been lost one way or another. But please do not be under any illusion that a so called 'alliance' between A middle eastern country like Iran and US would benefit Israel and their government long term. Infact I would argue that it is their policy and would do its outmost to create a rift. You may ask why? I would argue that such an alliance would undermine Israel's authority and influence not only in the region but also the US.

Sadly coudn't agree more with that predicament. The last few months of elections are  typically a crucial period in US elections to settle the score. All it takes is a little push and then you hear "we told you so".

Eternal war for eternal peace-a never ending bloodbath.

OswaldTheOsprey

You are welcome!
Just a little note Abraxas. Try to look at the nuclear issue as a detterent from an iranian's perspective:

1- Both neighbouring countries of Iran (Iraq and Afghanistan) have been invaded by US and allies since 9/11.
2- Iran was labelled part of the 'axis of evil' in 2001 in Gearge Bush's union speech written by David Frum. Iraq one of the other members is already invaded.
3- North Korea the other member has so far been immune from any attack because it's claimed that it already has atleast one nuclear bomb.
4- Israel had threatened repeatedly that it would bomb Iran's nuclear facility because Iran a is a danger to Israel and the the rest of the international community. The fact that Israel was going to bomb the facility even before Ahmadienejad came into power in 2005 makes all those reasonings about his comments "wipng Israel off the map" immaterial.

I have argued that Ahmadienejad is a product of Bush and the failed policies that could have created rapproachment between the relatively moderate government of Khatami (previous iranian president) and Bill Clinton.

That said even Ahmadienejad is fully aware of the consequences of any attacks on Israel and believe me he is not that stupid.

Ever considered the fact that Israel is home to some of the holiest places in muslim world and home to many muslim arabs and jews? Annihilation would mean destroying those even from a radical point of view. ;)

Abraxas, I think it is pretty clear that we can work out our differences with Iran and that the new-found friendship would help both countries.  We definitely agree on that.


I should clarify this a bit.  The way I see it, America can be a far greater deterent (in regards to Iran attacking Israel) if we are friends with Iran than if we are enemies.  It seems as though Iran uses the Israeli issue as a way to get much needed support in the Middle East than it would have without Israel to point a finger at.  If the US and Iran had good relations, I think Iran would back off of the rhetoric.  Furthermore, I think the economic and political gains of being more "moderate" would far outweigh gains of being anti-Israel all the time.  It is almost like when two people who really dislike one another have a common friend.  In many cases, this common friend acts as a moderator between the others and has a way of cooling things down a little bit.  I just think the US could be a potential mediator between the two nations and help ratchet down the tensions a little.

The Persians don't care and have issued their edict.  ;)
.. let the Arabs deal with Iran. Israel will never be touched by Iran and everyone knows this. Even if Iran glows green, Israel will survive.

Very true. I view Iran no differently than Pakistan and their pursuence of a nuclear weapon.

At least Iran's population (though not their leadership) seems a little more willing to work with us.


Very true. And I completely agree.



As a side note, I would like to comment on how much "agreeing" we have going on here. And in a thread in the Middle East forum and about Iran, no less.

Who would have thought?





Also, I forgot to make that post about Iran and North Korea.

I have class soon and then a job interview this afternoon, so I'll have to get it later tonight. Sorry Terry. I wrote my post and forgot ALL about it.

Just as a food for thought.

Whilst I am in agreement with some of you I believe change in Iran will have to be evolutionary and must come from within without foreign interferance.
 
One point of contention here that perhaps paves the way for some discussion is that some of you think the next irainan government should be friendly towards the US. IMO that statement per se is not sufficient and does not qualify for a choice. The responsibility of the government should be first and foremost to serve the interest of its citizens and to preserve the national security. Iran had a democratically elected government in 1953 that was toppled by MI5 and CIA to install the puppet government of Shah. This was a preferred choice because Shah protected americans interest in the region above all the other elements. Surely history will tell us that there's a expiry date on all these puppet governments friendly towards the US and that one day they will fall (Musharaff govt is a clear example). I guess what I am trying to say if it makes sense is that if there's no meddling with the internal politics of the next government by the US then there is a real chance to give with such an alliance a go.

.. If they don't throw a Nuke at Israel in the meantime. If that happens, all bets are off!

And that's exactely what we are doing and what the US is doing at the moment. We talk with Iran on a daily basis. We seldom talk so much with a country. So what's wrong? What else do you want?

US foreign policy is short-term.

If it wasn't, we may not have the Taliban and certaintly wouldn't have had to deal with Suddam Hussein... TWICE.

I hope our strategy changes. Soon.

so you think if Bush engaged Iran diplomatically it would hurt Obama's campaign?  Do you think it would be wrong of Bush to do so, b/c he didn't call for it first?  DO you believe Obama was the first person to call for this?

US is talking to Iran? jeez I am learning something new everyday!

Exactly! But the rules now have changed.

I wouldn't take my eyes off the ball, Israel to be exact.  ;)

No Neo. You didn't understand my post! By something crazy I meant Bush bombing Iran to appease the neocons and undermine Barack's campaign that advocated direct talks between the US and leaders of Iran and Cuba. No I don't think it would be wrong if Bush wanted to start a diplomatic talk with Iran but I find it highly unlikely given the circumstances and the relationship that exist between the two countries. I do think Obama is rational and can bring a fresh perspective on the table.

Yes indeed. Don't want to offend you, but you have to follow the facts a little bit closer.
It's obvious that there is no war in preparation against Iran, so why talking as if it was the case?

IMO the situation has evolved positively from one year ago.
One excellent developement was the agreement with Russia to enforece a third round of sanctions. Because as long as the Securoty Council will be able to agree on such measures to pressure Iran, war in unlikely. Wra will be much more likely if Russia and China didn't care at all and let Iran do what they want or even help them.
This last event is sure to create a change in opinions in Iran.

So, Bush is not talking with Iran? Maybe but they have not much to tell to each other anyway.
It's a problem inside Iran. A problem of voices in Iran to stop the program. There is not much that the West or the US can tell them about that.
The equation is quiet simple: They stop = no sanction, they continue = more sanction, they produce material for an atom bomb = war.
They know that. Now it's up to them to debate and decide if they want isolation, economic decline and war or if they want the opposite.

You are not offending me at all. I am following this very closely but still fail to see that the US is in direct talks with Iran about the nuclear issue. US never held direct talks with iranian officials on this particluar issue as you claimed.


Maybe obvious to you but not to me as long as Bush is still president.



You mean first apply the sanction to weaken a country and then attack? Isn't this what the west did to Iraq?


Sure it will! But it will change public perception in a negative way towards the US and the west. If the intention of these sanctions is to inflict economic hardship on ordinary iranians and create enough momentum to stop the government from acquiring the bomb I could have kind of seen the rational. But if infact the ultimate intention is to "always interfer in their affairs as long as 30% of our energy sources come from them" then what incentive is there for future moderate governments in Iran to form allainces with the US unless ofcourse they are a puppet/corrupted governments of saudi arabia, egypt and others? Personally, I think that's unlikely as I see the paradigm has shifted and the US knows that this model no longer works.
 

Oh yes there's plenty that both countries have talked directly in relation to Iraq and Afghanistan but not the nuclear issue.

I can't believe that in two years no american has ever talked to any iranian about the nuclear issue. But as I said they have not much to tell to each other on that topic in particular unlike, as you said, on Iraq and Afghqnistan issues.
. Hence the little exchange.
But if Iran has something new to say, I'm sure the US will be all ears.


So when Bush won't be president, or to be more exact when a democrat will be president, the situation will change? No, it won't change. Not in this case.


No the West didn't do that in Iraq. The West didn't plan 12 years of sanction in 1991 to attack by 2003. That doesn't make sens.
Also, some coutries behind the sanctions like France were against the war, remember.
If sanction has to apply in prevision of an attack, then we do a blockade and attack within a year. That's a different thing.

My point was that sanctions on Iran are a better solution than war. Without sanctions Iran will move faster to the point where war against them become unavoidable.


Stopping them from aquiring the bomb is closely linked to them having "30% of our energy sources" and that it's an islamic dictature too.
I think we won't allow any country, even non islamic and non oil exporter to aquire nukes, but in the case of Iran, having huge reserve of oil, being located on the Persic Gulf and being an Islamic dictature compound our reasons to interfer.

Will sanctions on Iran deteriorate our image they have of us? Certainly. But not as bad as a war. Worse than letting them build the nukes, of course, but that's not an option.

Well, you may not see this on FOX or CNN cause I'm sure they'll just show the same, tired, old videos where they yell "Death to America," but I think this story is whorth sharing.

Personally I think it should be headline news... but hey, I'm not a media-mogul.


Thought I should stress the "youths" part...

The US can work with this. They can also work with the Democratic protests in Pakistan, Tibet and Myanmar...

... but I'm sure we won't.

It's well known the youth in Iran want a more modern and less restrictive government. Their time will come.

Abraxas

How the US can work with this? Sent them a postcard?
Seriousely what the US can do with youths and protestors? There is nothing they can do.

Never these groups wil be able to overthrow these regimes. Sending them money will make things even worse as they will be seen as "puppets of the US".

What Iran needs is two millions of poeple in the streets and an general push for regime change. As long as a large part of the population believe supertitiousely that mullahcracy is good because it protect morality, there is no hope.
As long as one third of the Iranian population are behind Ahmadinejahd and the radicals, nothing will change there.
What they need is 90% asking for change.

Well, not bombing them, for a start. Perhaps giving these youths greater air time. Hell, if they can't speak out in Iran, give them a mic from CNN and let them go.


Not what I meant. I already saw how well things turned out with the Mujhadeen and Cuba. I would never agree with US involvement of that magnitude.


They need a taller "soap box".

Iran holds the US presidency right now. Tehran can sink McCain in bad news that will make the notion "the surge has worked" a sarcasm. McCain is very lucky that Iranian mullahs are unbelievably peaceful people who refuse to use Iraqis as gunmeat to kill Americans. For all practical reasons, Iran has decisive word in the US election. Iran has every ability to sink McCain like an old rusty battleship by creating a derisive background for Cain's militaristic patriotic sy(m)phony.

<shrugs> by ignoring them? The reason the youth won't be successful is because the right-wing elements in Iran are fed and supplied with a reason to exist by the right-wing elements in the West. Bush says, "We might need to bomb Iran because i can't think of any other way and I can't think of anything else more iportant".

Alternatively the right-wing elements in Iran can point to an admittedly scary individuals like Cheny or Bush and say to their people, "See? You need a tough talking right-wing party to protect you". And it works. The two systems feed off each other.

Ignore Iran and the original reason for the Mullahs disappears -- along with their power.



Ahk

Akh, I agree with that. But the question was not "How not to nerve right-wing powers in Iran" but "How to help anonymous 18 years old demonstrators who are not grouped into an organisation listed as official partner for the CIA and who don't even have a headquarter in the US?"

The answer to this question, for the amricans is "We can't do that.".

It's not a group of people/ organisations as such that may be seen as puppets of the US. It's the typically puppet middle eastern governments to serve the US interest in the region. This has been a long term US policy.


What Iran needs is no interferance from outside powers in its internal affairs like in 1953 (the coup of democratically elected goverment of Mossadegh by CIA) and 1978 (revolution that saw the downfall of Shah widely regarded as the US puppet that no longer served the US interest only to be replaced by mullahs in Iran). There is a great mistrust in the history of the two nations and quite rightly so. It's simple, so long as this lunatic government in the White House keep threatening Iran with war there will be a majority of iranians inside and outside the country supporting an otherwise unpopular government. Any change for Iran must be evolutionary and come from within with no interferance from outside world.

I agree.
Kosovo and Iraq qre shining exqmple of the bankrupcy of such policy.

It's unclear at this time how many Iranian fear the regime too much to protest, how many don't care and how many believe in the superiority of the Islamic moral (over decent living conditions)...

Well that's the thing Fred. In all honesty since when have young radicals every really needed help from the CIA? There have been youth or new generation-inspired revolutions since forever and will continue long after the CIA is the CI-"Who?". All the CIA ever seems to do is find the loudest most violent one and pick him (crazy helps too), so why not just try a different approach for a change? Just sayin'.

Just sit back. Put your feet up. Ignore the Mouth.

Save some money for a change.

Ahk

The best thing the USA can do if the USA wants to see some democratic improvements in Iran is to say the heck out. 

That means no CIA funding of opposition groups, no CIA covert games, no CIA involvement with exiles, and no US propaganda/disinformation campaigns in Iran.

These are the policies the USA are already using and so far have only managed to almost wipe out the 'reformist' faction in Iran and have fully entrenched the 'conservative' faction.

Democratic progress in Iran is limited by US actions.  So long as the US plays the warmonger game or the Iranian subversion game, Iran will swing 'conservative'.

I don't think the US is the only political factor in Iran.
US or no US, the islamist clergy will always want power.

I disagree with your assertion that Islamic clergy always want power. 

For example, the Grand Ayatollah of Iraq (Sistani) has formally stated that he doesn't want the clerics to rule in Iraq and this is the general policy amongst Iraqi Shi'ites, a position notably shared by Muqtada Sadr.

And Iran is officially the same - the clerics do not rule directly, only in an advisory capacity (officialy speaking).  Their outward power is reflected by the power of the 'conservative' faction in the elected legislature. 

The electoral strength of the 'conservatives' seems to rise or fall in direct proportion to the amount of animosity and covert political operations coming from the US.

The 'reformist' faction was rising in Iran throughout the 1990's after the Iran-Iraq war.  That's the opportunity the US government took to increase their engagement with Iranian exile groups and Iranian reform groups.  US support caused an immediate drop in support for the 'reformers' and a consequent rise in support for the 'conservatives'.  This trend continues to the present day.

It is a time to bomb Iran (as much as necessary) to solve the Middle-east's problems.

A reminder of the effectiveness of the West's nuclear arsenal might also put off any more dodgy states trying to acquire those kinds of missiles (Hiroshima and Nagasaki kept the peace - ha! ha! - for fifty years).

In this case, the opportunity is a target. And will cause less lose of life (again like nuking the Japanese homeland).

If you're an American, please refrain from posting.

You're making us look stupid.

how about applying same logic to the Islamists-Imperialists axis? Doesn't it seem likely that just like Western right wing feeds Iranian mullahs, Western interventionism (count here Israel) feeds Sunni Islamism?

Yeah yeah yeah Pistachios.

I say something you don't agree with you're all over me. I say something you DO agree with and you're all over me. It's flattering. Really.


Thought that's what I was doing moron.

Did you come out of retirement just to attach yourself to my leg like a leech? A barnacle maybe? Good to know I've managed to crush your psyche, your very sense of Id.


Maybe. Did I ever argue against something like that?




lol. nob.
Ahk

what a sense of self-importance, Ahk. U are not on my priority list; unbelievable but true.


you denied my argument that 9/11 was in any way provoked by American behaviour. U denied the idea that Western policies are an irritant to the Islamists. It's just that you need a distinction between Sunni and Shia Islamists because the Shias are not so much involved in 9/11-Afghanistan link, and anything that touches you personally. You're hawkish on Sunnies and dovish on Shias, and ascribing different motives to Qaeda/Taliban and Iran suits your cause.

And yet you haven't posted in months, and when you do it's two knee-jerk posts jumping on me before you even know what I've said. So deny all you like but obviously I am at the top of your priority list.


No actually i have never done that. I said it's no excuse. I said that does not make it rational or imply rationality to their acts. I feel confident you did not use words like "provoked" or "irritant", but probably instead used words like "excuses" or "explains" or "justifies". Besides Al Qaeda does not equal Iran, no matter how much you need to simplify in order to make it seem so.



Uhhh no. This is 100% incorrect. Rare are the times I've spoken about Sunni/Shia at all, let alone cast any judgment on them or come out in favor of one over the other. Further I've never discussed a link between Shias and Afghanistan. Not once. You're thinking of someone else. I'm all about "Pakistan and Afghanistan", remember? And I don't need to ascribe different motives to Iran and Al Qaeda, all I need to do is compare their acts to decide that Iran deserves breathing room and al Qaeda deserves to be erased. Iran wants a nuclear defensive deterrent, and al Qaeda doesn't really know what it wants (in my opinion) but will kill anyone to get it. Big difference there....furhter Al Qaeda, unlike Iran, has no "moderate elements" to it.

GO ahead Pistachios, I dare you: search the forum (this one or 1.0) for posts written by me that include the word Sunni. There's 4 of them. Go look at what I said. Go look at the context.

Satisfied? Didn't think so.

Put down the joint when you speak to me, or at least think for a second or two before you do. But wahtever, you're not into discussion, you're into following me around and whenever....
s'your game. I mean why would it be so hard to see what I said about Iran and simply say: "I agree for once Ahk"? I've done it with you. No, you'd hate yourself wouldn't you? Instead you come in and try to divert the course of the thread off topic based on some faded argument you and I had that you probably aren't remembering correctly. Yep. Same old Pistachios: argue at all costs.

Ahk

let's see what i know about u: a dude from Alberta who was in Afghanistan; probably in the 28-35 age range; a busy father; spends lots of time on forums; has an acute sense of truth, passionately chides those who seem to him liars; fairly well-educated, with inclinations towards literature, possibly, an unfulfield writer; detests the anarchy of excessive self-determination; prone to sudden mood changes; uses outrageously inadequate hyperbolas; renowned master of rhetorical offensives through the caricature representation of the opponent's discourse.  Sorry, not enough to put u on my priority list.



i said it was a bad reaction to the bad action.


you didn't. I said you had different positions on Taliban and Iran. It's not about the Sunni-Shia division per se. It's about your attitude to the US-Sunni relations (Qaeda, Taliban, Pakistani Islamists) and the US -Iran front. US clearly provokes Islamists both Sunni and Shia; but you won't admit it "feeds" Qaeda while you do admit it feeds Iranian rightwing. Well, it feeds both, that's the  point.


Qaeda is not a confined strucutre with borders and population. It draws from the Muslim mainstream. People who are Qaeda today were average folks a year ago. Qaeda EXISTS because there are enough people willing to partake in the cause. Can you deny that US-Israel actions increase the number of Qaeda sympathizers? Or you admit that. it's just that those sympatthizers are irrational crooks anyway who have no rational issue with the US policy?


OK, i'll give ya vacation again.

 
 what's the point to agree to the obvious? It's like I say "this guy was provoked into such behaviour", and you say "no, he's just a psycho, always behaves like that", and then you say "this one was provoked", and I say "why didn't you said that about the previous one? What's the difference?"

Actions speak louder than words, especially excessive explainations. Im sure there's a lot on this thread and the Tibet one where people said something you disagreed with yet you felt a need to "argue' with me over something you DO agree with (iran). Regardless of your ability to see it, that DOES make me a priority.


Oh well then one could hardly be surprised at my confusion when you said:
Since we've just established I've never spoken on a link betwenn Sunni and Afghanistan. I dont recognize alQaeda or Taliban as Muslim.


Uuhhh no. Terrorists can claim anything provokes them to justified murder. Their home nation invites the US to have an embassy or to bring troops to their land (Lebanon. Saudi Arabia) and al Qaeda thinks this excuses killing any American they see. Why don;'t they bomb their own leadership? How come if Osama is soo pissed with the House of Saud he doesnt take the fight to them?  On the other hand you have Iran, an independant nation who has not attacked anyone but has reason to feel threatened. They want an a-bomb. So what? Every nation out there who has gained a nuclear arsinal uses it for deterrent. There is no connection. Iran can be reasoned with, while al Qaeda will always find a reason to exist -- meaning a reason to kill Americans -- regardless of whether or not they pull their troops from Saudi (.which they did).

I am confident in the difference and considering how you debate I'm not willing to get into it with you....suffice to say you need to make some pretty heavy generalizations as well as not consider some huge factors befiore you can draw even a loose comparrison between Iran as an entity and al Qaeda as an entity.
It was the same thing with the civilian bombing tactics of WWII and the argument we had about that. You really had to pull out all the stops to hold the US and the atomic bomb as so vastly different than the previous.10 year evolution world wide of this new and grutesqe tactic. At the end of the day the only difference was that they were American.


blah blah blah. As I said al Qaeda has no moderate elements. If they did I'd have more faith in diplomacy with them. Further they DO NOT draw from the mainstream. Most non-leadership al Qaeda and Taliban are some of the most undereducated and poor in the world. Most would not join if they had some notion of the world outside their madrass.


Excuse me but according to the rest of the planet "ignoring Iran" or the idea that conservative elements here provoke conserative elements there is neither obvious nor a popular stance. The point to agreeing once in a while is so we know you're not stupid.


One is an ancient nation with millions of people and a thousand possabilities for it's future whereas a gang of phsycos will only ever lead to one thing. Further you could kill every al qaeda member and I would not stir from a restful sleep, whereas another "shock and awe" in Iran will likely kill everyone NOT related to their minor stupidity. As bloodthursty as you're counting on me being, I wouldn't like that at all and advise avoiding it at all costs. Lastly, Iran hasn't attacked anyone unprovoked. Even when their youth took the American embassy hostage they didnt kill any of them. There's a clear difference right there.

The same could be said about the US. There are tons of moderates in the US as well, so again, the future possabilites are boundless. I would've thought this was easily as obvious as how a docturne of bombing civilians started (or was propelled as a worthwhile tactic) at Geurnica, making the Japanese bombings a predictable crescendo regardless of whether 100,000's were killed by many firebombs or one a-bomb. It was the same tactic, evolved. This is obvious as well but you didn't get that. In fact a lot of things I consider obvious are not so obvious to you, so there is a point to agreeing with the "obvious".


Make it permanent. I feel no pressing desire to convince (or convert) you of anything or to even debate you considering the tactics you use....(such as ambiguously implying I said something about Afghanistan and Sunni or ever argued it and then turning around and telling me there's basically no way I could know what you mean by that because it's a personal opinion you forgot to mention or properly relate...or instead of agreeing with something I say you decide this is your cue to take the thread off-topic and resurrect an argument from long ago).

If you want me to participate you have to get past 'argue anything' or I'll just fluctuate between bitching at you and ignoring you. While in 'argue anything' mode there are others who will entertain you. I've stopped trusting you or taking you seriously, but I don;'t want you to get pissed either and take off, so ....leave me alone, or at least dont be surprised if I don't bother engaging beyond "blah blah blah yeah whatever Pistachios".



Ahk

they are heretics. An imam like yourself, well versed in the Muslim theology, can surely establish heretical nature of the Salafi madhab.



and Pat Buchanan can claim that -

"The 9/11 killers were over here because we are over there. We were not attacked because of who we are but because of what we do. It is not our principles they hate. It is our policies. U.S. intervention in the Middle East was the cause of the 9/11 terror."

  http://www.amconmag.com/2005_02_28/buchanan.html

But Buchanan, like dozens of intellectuals and millions of mundane folks everywhere, is a crook. Or possibly he's an East European anarchist. Bottom line, there are lots of people everywhere who just can't figure it out that there is nothing to figure out about Qaeda. "gang of phsycos ".


US is the backbone of the regimes, as well as of the occupation of Palestine.



because there are family connections, and the tribal vendetta,  and the reflex against the intra-Wahhabi bloodletting,  and the sacred status of the royal familykeepers of the Holy Mosques. Bottom line is that occupation of Palestine, and regimes in KSA, Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, Bahrein, Kuwait, etc would not be possible without the US. US policy is intrusive. If Osama, snotty liberals, proud libertarians, far rightwing, and paleoconservative Buchanan say same thing, what on Earth could that mean? How many opinions do you need to get suspicious that it could indeed be US policies that produced the uproar? You will run out of arguments trying to disqualify the speakers because same thing is coming from the entire political spectre.


i'm comparing not their structures but their motives.


they do. There are various mainstreams. Saudi Salafis, Jordanian suburbans, Waziri tribesmen, Egyptian intellectuals, London second-generation immigrants. Qaeda draws from eash of them.



first, Qaeda and Taliban are diffierent things with different agendas. Qaeda is a label, trademark for various unrelated Sunni Islamists aiming to stop intrusions into Dar ul Islam, and to erect Islamist regimes in Sunni countries. Taliban was a very local Pashtu movement under the aegis of ISI tasked with eliminating the Afghan civil war and containing Tajik-Uzbeck-Hazara warlords. Second, Qaeda members were Arab and Pakistani activists with fairly good education and income. There were no peasants or shoemakers in Qaeda. It was a club of hardcore activists, not a large movement with clueless folks. Another issue is that Qaeda has mass support.

Bottom line: the idea about the intrusive and provocative character of US policies in the Muslim world is shared by whole lot of people from all ideological backgrounds, and ""a lot of things I consider obvious are not so obvious to you"".

flagged as spam for no reason.

Peisithantos: try removing the links, then post, then add the links back in with an edit.

Also if you ahve any brand names try and remove them.

It's a known bug and there's pretty much nothing we can do about it.

Or you can hit the REPLY button at the bottom, scroll down to the spammed post and then modify the post where you said, "flagged as spam for no reason," insert the quote, remove the "quote" boxes on the top and bottom and hit modify.

It should show up just fine.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll put your post in mine to demonstrate. I wrote everything above the dashed line and posted it. I then modified the post (notice the modification notice at the bottom of the post) and added yours.

I kept the quote buttons so people know you said it.

I am not American (though my wife is), but I was in the British Army, have lived in the Middle-east for three years, and we used to fight terrorism when it was still funded by stupid (Irish)-Americans.

I know what I'm talking about; and in war there is a time to kill the bad guys (and if you can't see Iran as the baddies, then you, personally, are stupid).

Don't write pointless or rude replies to a serious post.

Yes, as someone in the army I imagine you spent a lot of time fighting criminal elements in the Middle East... but there are several indications that Iran is making a slow transition that can better benefit the US if we allow them to take place. It's certaintly a better idea then going in, smashing up the place and making an even larger population of angry Muslims.

Invasion, occupation and war DO NOT WORK. It didn't work for Britain and it's not working for the US.

Why don't we try something else?


"Serious post"? Are you kidding?

You actually said, and I quote, "It is a time to bomb Iran (as much as necessary) to solve the Middle-east's problems."

What amount of constructive thought does that show? What kind of critical anlysis did you do to come to that conclusion? What understanding of the situation does something like that prove?

Your reply went on to say, "A reminder of the effectiveness of the West's nuclear arsenal might also put off any more dodgy states trying to acquire those kinds of missiles (Hiroshima and Nagasaki kept the peace - ha! ha! - for fifty years)," with NO regard for what a nuclear explosion in the Middle East would do to global oil prices, terrorist cells in the region or the radical elements that control some of the governments there.

As if this display of ineptitude weren't enough, you made this assertion, "In this case, the opportunity is a target. And will cause less lose of life (again like nuking the Japanese homeland)," without actually proving it.

So please, if you really think that was a "serious post", I ask again that you refrain from posting.

Yes, as someone in the army I imagine you spent a lot of time fighting criminal elements in the Middle East... but there are several indications that Iran is making a slow transition that can better benefit the US if we allow them to take place. It's certaintly a better idea then going in, smashing up the place and making an even larger population of angry Muslims.

Invasion, occupation and war DO NOT WORK. It didn't work for Britain and it's not working for the US.

Why don't we try something else?


"Serious post"? Are you kidding?

You actually said, and I quote, "It is a time to bomb Iran (as much as necessary) to solve the Middle-east's problems". What amount of constructive thought does that show? What kind of critical anlysis did you do to come to that conclusion? What understanding of the situation does something like that prove?

Your reply went on to say, "A reminder of the effectiveness of the West's nuclear arsenal might also put off any more dodgy states trying to acquire those kinds of missiles (Hiroshima and Nagasaki kept the peace - ha! ha! - for fifty years)," with NO regard for what a nuclear explosion in the Middle East would do to global oil prices, terrorist cells in the region or the radical elements that control some of the governments there.

As if this display of ineptitude weren't enough, you made this assertion, "In this case, the opportunity is a target. And will cause less lose of life (again like nuking the Japanese homeland)," without actually proving it.

So please, if you really think that was a "serious post", I ask again that you refrain from posting.

Where in the middle east have you been? I take it not Iran right? If not, how does what you have claimed here manifest your knowledge of that country?

Saudi, Qatar, Bahrain, the U.A.E., Kuwait, Iraq, and one I can't remember the correct name of. That enough to demonstrate I know the region reasonably? But I would also claim that that doesn't mean I understand the population - just a little bit more of their internation relations than most people.

But the enemy is clear; and as such they might require bombing to neuter their military means (and allow their populations the opportunity of becoming a civilian population, with civil rights).

Bombing them will only add conviction to the radical anti-American right wing parties already in power. They'll hate us too much to revolt. They'll be too busy trying to get back at us for destroying their country.

OR we could wait and let the moderate population intigrate into the existing government structure and slowly transition away from radicalism...


By every stretch of the imagination, it's easier to wait for option number 2. It's even cheaper cause then we don't have to pay for the bombs...

I'm not aware of any British military forces stationed in Saudi in the last couple of decades.  Indeed, US military forces based in Saudi was the 'official' reason Osama gave for launching 9/11 attack on the USA. 

This was happening through the late 1980's and early 1990's period.

Unfortunately, the US Government doesn't know a good thing when they see it and decided they should 'help' the Iranian reformers with US dollars, US support and US covert action.

The Iranian 'reform' faction has been pretty much destroyed because of this and the 'conservative' (i.e. anti-US reactionaries) has been on the rise ever since.

US foreign policy has never taken a 'slow but sure' approach to anything.  They always favor short-term policies that cause maximum long-term problems.  Iran is already a perfect example of this phenomena long before the Bush Administration was sworn in.

There is nothing we should or could do about Iran.
Iranians are stuck with this moronic regime and they have no chance of changing it with or without our aid.
Some of you are talking as if a clear US disengagement from Iran would all of a sudden trigger a wave of liberty in this country: Nope. Nothing will change.

This is dictature there. I like to compare it with the soviet union: Russians lived 70 years (other populations +- 50), without any chance of changing their governement, until their economy finaly collapse to the point the regime itself couldn't survive.
Unfortunately Iran while poor when you see the population, is immensely rich now with oil at $115/barrel.
I don't see this regime falling soon. It will take at least as long as the USSR.

The West/US has no reason for helping a regime change there. Except building nukes, Iranian can realy do what they want at home. There is some concern about them supporting terrorist and guerrilla groups outside Iran, but these supports won't make a case for a war against them.
For so many years they are doing it, if that was the case we would have bombed 100x already.
Nobody wants to destabilize Iran, bomb it or attack it. Certainly not the americans.
That would make Iraq way more difficult to control, move oil prices even higher, allienating the muslim world against us, etc. The list of disadvantages is too long to be ignored even by the Homo Ignoramus sitting at White House.
(Nuclear bomb developement could change that but we are not there yet). It's much more advantageous, ironicaly both for Iran and the US, to fight rebel groups outside Iran rather than Iran itself. A little bit like it was a better choice to attack the communist in Vietnam rather than the USSR or China upfront.

Er - you don't think they hate us already?

Well, if you bomb the hell out of their military bases they will learn respect - and possibly even follow Europe on the path to Enlightenment. Stop treating them like a civilization - because they aren't one as you understand it.

I don't want to bomb a country i don't give a damn about and i don't give a damn about Iran.
I don't need their respect nor does the US.
I don't care if they are not civilized, unless they start doing something that could be a danger for us like building atom bombs.

While dropping by to read a little, much of the same arguments most typically presented by the posters who continue the discussions related to their pro and con support for those I
refer to as the Israeli, Zionists, those who have the political power there, just to share from one of my favorite columnists who often calls it right. While so will demean a post that
comes from the Atlantic Free Press, it's worth a few minutes to read Floyd's column. Floyd points out Iran is unquestionably a target in conflict with the title of this thread.

Feeding Moloch: Last Barriers to War on Iran Come Down           
Written by Chris Floyd      
Saturday, 03 May 2008
by Chris Floyd

Anyone who thinks the Bush Administration does not intend to attack Iran either has rocks in the head or their head in the sand. The warmongers have raised their cacophonous howling of threat and accusation against Iran to entirely new levels. Every day now, some major Administration figure makes fiery charges that Iran is directly, deliberately killing U.S. soldiers in Iraq: a clear casus belli, if it were true, which it almost certainly is not.

(That is, it a clear cause for war in the perverted logic of Establishment discourse, which ignores the fact that U.S. forces have illegally invaded and occupied Iraq, and the fact the Bush Administration itself supports the same violent sectarian Shiite factions that Iran does in Iraq, factions responsible for killing thousands of innocent people. What's more, Bush and his beloved General Petraeus are now directly paying extremist Sunni factions, including members of Al Qaeda in Iraq, who are likewise engaged in murder, repression and "ethnic cleansing," like their Bush-supported Shiite counterparts. George W. Bush and his minions and handlers have deliberately, knowingly, purposely created a slaughterhouse in Iraq, and they keep it going 24/7 with the fresh meat of murdered innocents. This is the true context of the Administration's charges against Iran: mass murderers accusing others of malevolent intent.)

The latest and most explicit salvo of warmongering comes from CIA honcho Michael Hayden, who finally crossed the red line that Bush officials have been tip-toeing up to for months: the charge that Iran's top government leadership is directly involved in "facilitating the killing of Americans in Iraq." As late as last week, the nation's top military officer, Admiral Michael Mullen, said there was "no smoking gun proof" that Iran's leadership was involved in the alleged Iranian support for attacks on American forces. And Petraeus, in his many Tehran-baiting broadsides over the past few months, has likewise always stopped short of this war-triggering accusation.

But now Hayden — obviously with White House support — has stepped boldly over that line. In an appearance at Kansas State University, he made it crystal clear:
"It is my opinion, it is the policy of the Iranian government, approved to highest level of that government, to facilitate the killing of Americans in Iraq," Hayden said. "Just make sure there's clarity on that."

In the weeks to come, the Administration will be rolling out more product along these lines, as the AP report notes:

Military commanders in Baghdad are expected to roll out evidence of that support soon, including date stamps on newly found weapons caches showing that recently made Iranian weapons are flowing into Iraq at a steadily increasing rate.
Saint Petraeus himself is also preparing a report on alleged Iranian involvement in Iraq. (Aside from Tehran's intimate ties with Bush's own allies in Iraq, of course.) No doubt the word from this sterling officer — universally respected despite his nearly unbroken record of egregious failure — will be treated as holy writ by the "bipartisan foreign policy establishment," including the two "progressive" Democratic presidential candidates, one of which has already called for the "obliteration" of Iran, while the other stresses constantly that "all options remain on the table" against Tehran.

The complete text of this very relevant column can be accessed on the link.

 http://atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/3844/81

attacking Iran is not a matter of pretext, casus belli, but a matter of capability. Iran's nuclear behaviour and role in Iraq are already sufficient casi belli for the administration, and if they are persuasive to the world, who cares/ The only thing is that with the most perfect pretext of all, Iran is a tough target.

Peisithanatos, while I don't post here often, I do read a lot. A site I check often is vetvoice.com  .  Sometimes, those who have been there and done that, at least in Iraq and Afghanistan, share a different perspective than many of the brave keyboard warriors who are always ready to go to war anywhere the current Administration of war mongers and
war profiteers says is right, so long as they aren't those who have to go.  And after those comments, this vet and I both agree with you. Not only a tough target militarily, but a
tough one IMHO to convince the rest of the planet, to include China, Russia and even those in Europe that it's right, though I have no doubt Israel will go as they've been armed and
readied by the U.S. for years even though Iran has no nukes and they lie about theirs there would be no hesitation to join the U.S. in a pre-emptive strike.

An Attack On Iran Will Not Be Limited In Scope
by: dm
Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:55:02 AM EDT

(From the diaries - promoted by Brandon Friedman)

CBS is reporting that the US is preparing new plans to attack Iran.  The plans are ostensibly designed to counter Iranian influence in Iraq.  The article implies that targets will primarily consist of locations that are related to Iranian activities in Iraq, such as IRGC command centers and weapon manufacturing facilities.
I think the media needs to wake up to what an attack on Iran would really look like.  Even assuming that the objective of the attack is limited to reducing Iranian exportation of weapons and training to Iraq, the attack itself would not be limited.  Remember, Iran possesses a fairly substantial defensive and retaliatory capability. 

First of all, any air attack would involve strikes on Iranian air defense and communications nodes, as well as on airfields housing military aircraft.  This is necessary to protect our aircraft.  Political and military centers of gravity would also be attacked in order to disrupt and delay the Iranian response.

Second, Iranian naval forces possess conventional surface ships, fast attack craft, sophisticated submarines, naval mines, and anti-ship cruise missiles.  Therefore, Iran can disrupt shipping (both commercial and military) in the Arabian Gulf and possibly the Arabian Sea.  This is a crucial supply route for US forces and for global oil distribution.  The entire Iranian naval apparatus would have to be destroyed.

Third, Iran possesses ballistic missiles which could be used to attack US forces and friendly nations throughout southwest Asia.  The US would have to seek out and destroy these missiles.  Additionally, US forces (probably the Navy) would have to operate in the Arabian Gulf and elsewhere to provide a defense against any missiles that leave the ground.

Last, but certainly not least, we can't leave out the Iranian nuclear program.  Whether or not you believe that the program is designed to produce a weapon, the Bush Administration is obviously not going to risk seriously pissing off a country that builds nukes.  Facilities related to this program will have to be destroyed.

The bottom line is that it is exceedingly unlikely that any US commander is going to implement a series of limited strikes and risk the substantial possibility of serious retaliation.  An attack on Iran will almost certainly be sustained, violent, and broad in scope.  To suggest anything else is misleading.

I should probably note that I have no personal knowledge of the contents of any US military plan to attack Iran.  What's written above is logical conjecture.


This VetVoice post contains confirming hyperlinks that can be accessed on the link.


http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1144
 
 

It's a tough target, not much or not only because of its military might, but because of the strategic environement for the americans in the region.
A new war in the region woud create millions of unsolvable problems, most of them unkown yet.

Cass

IMO it's totaly out of question that the US attacks Iran in a foreseable future (certainly not 6 months ahead of the elections).
The only thing that could trigger a war is their nuclear program but that would take at least one year before there is  a real danger and that a decision is made. And a new round of incentive package talks just started last week. Proof that the west is working full time to delay any military clash with Iran.
And Iran, IMO, is slowly understanding that it's no good trying building atomic bombs with  antiquated technologies. Especialy when Russia doesn't agree.

Information that Sadr's brigades are trained and supplied by Iran as well as Izbullah, is nothing new.
When a CIA spokman talks about Iranian involvement in Iraq, the only surprise is that he think that some poeple still don't know about it.

Fredledingue, when looking at the possibility of a mutual attack on Iran, it is my tendency to take a look at the internal political circumstances in Israel.  Bibi Netanyahu's views on this issue have long been know.  There is no question where he is concerned. I've sure his view have changed since the article from 2006.

Netanyahu: ‘It’s 1938, Iran is Germany’

http://www.ajn.com.au/news/news.asp?pgID=2015

Next for those who might not have noticed, Petraeus and Crocker have been in London conferring with Brown and today from DEBKAfile there are two notable pieces of information
quite possibly related if you bother to read, most especially if you are aware of Netanyahu's continued rise in Israeli political circumstances while Olmert may be in the process of
being taken down. a

Who Put “Deep Throat” up as Olmert’s Nemesis?
DEBKAfile Special Analysis
May 3, 2008, 9:47 PM (GMT+02:00)

What brought the unnamed accuser from America to the door of the Israeli police at this time? According to an Israeli paper, he laid before police investigators strong evidence of a new and grave corr