Swift Sword

Manipulating the Iranians into doing what is in the interests of the United States is not appeasement, it is good strategy.

You may have been indoctrinated to believe that anything that is not blood and iron amounts to appeasement but that is not a logical or rational position.

That was the same argument we got to justify the war in Iraq.

What have we learned from the war in Iraq? The same knife that is used to neuter can be the agency of self emasculation in the same stroke.

Furthermore, the Wisdom of the Ages has admonitions regarding the knife as the best solution to knotty problems.

Regards,

William

__________________
Pharoh was pimp but now he is dead. What are you going to do today?

xerxes

I agree with you ... it is also quite possible that in the 80s in the Tehran underworld, the ruling elite were also asking the question "Are israel and the united states threat to our national security".

Some said nay, some said yay, ... the yay went for the nukes while the nay were ridiculed as appeasers and westerners ...

__________________
If we contrast the rapid progress of this mischievous discovery of gunpowder with the slow and laborious advances of reason, science, and the arts of peace, a philosopher, according to his temper, will laugh or weep at the folly of mankind. - Edward Gibbon

Feanor

Well keep in mind Iran is a maor destablizing factor in the region. It is actively coperating with powers antagonistic to the U.S. and it happens to be suporting iraqi insurgents. They may not be a major threat to the U.S. but can certainly case problems for the U.S. foreign policy.

zraver

Without a doubt capability equals threat, posture mated up with capability equals a credible threat. And if yo don't take a credible threat seriously and it come sback to haunt you you have lost your manuvering room. We recently re-discovered that in North Korea. Clinton changed our nuclear posture and kept the Korean regime afloat and now we have a nucelar power in direct confrontation with US troops and the urge for South Korea to go nuclea rnow in the next few years will be great as now they have a nuclear border and are sandwiched between the rising tensiosn between Japan and China.

Iran could fail without US intervention, but without US intervention Iran could get a nuclear capability that would allow it to export its violence without restraint. Iran has been engaged in nearly 30 years of anti-Amrican/Anti-western, Anti-Israeli violence. America is most definiately not the agressor. America is not the state threatening genocide, missile strikes agasinst the GCC, oil blockade, and exportign arms and terrorist to groups doing thier damnbest to keep the body count up, and the peace proccess dead.

Letting them get a nuclear capability is not manipulation its appeasement and an abandonement of our allies.

History isn't indoctrination, your Barney like "why can't we all jsut get along" hippiesque is. You seme to think you can talk a madman sane. Lybia folded after years of sanctions at an early age prevented the dream from going forward. Iran has a much better technological base and sanctiosn alone will not stop thier progress. South Africa gave up its quest after a regiime change and a totally changed threat enviroment.

And convetional wisdom is usally wrong. History says those who fail to pay the piper today, only have a bigger bill to pay later.

Swift Sword

Hi Zraver,

Maneuvering room is a moot point if nobody chooses to maneuver.

Clinton was faced with the same policy choices as President Bush: maintain the status quo, increasing friction/risk war on the Korean Penninsula and containment and/or rollback of a nuclear North Korea.

Three things are for certain:

1. Iran as a failed state is not in the interests of the United States or its allies;

2. A wider war in the Middle East and Central Asia is not in the interests of the United States or its allies;

3. Iran in posession of fission weapons and delivery systems is not in the interests of the United States or its allies.

Anyway you cut it, though, option #3 is not the worst of the lot though I am not to enamored with it. Option #3 offers the greatest opportunity to control the situation but why let it get that far if we do not have to?

The U.S. and its allies know how to handle nuclear states.

As to restraint, history has proven that a state's behavior tends to be changed and constrained by acquisition of fission weapons.

Too, history has proven that the international system is quite capable of absorbing and balancing out new players to the nuclear club and any contingency planning will no doubt take that into account.

You might want to take a look at U.S. involvement with Iran over the last fifty years before you jump to the conclusion that the U.S. has not been aggressive towards Iran.

One might make the argument that with a credible nuclear deterrent in hand, Iran would not have to resort to many of these offsets.

Converting Iran into a failed state with its attendant effects on energy security, increasing terrorist activity, allowing its WMD materials and know how slip away, increasing regional instability, etc., etc. is the abandonment of our allies as well but comes at a higher price than attempting to roll back or contain a nuclear armed Iran.

Why are you so Hell bent on abandoning our interests and allies at the highest price possible?

The Iranians are anything but mad. They have, since their Revolution, demonstrated a fair degree of strategic acumen and sophistication.

That is not exactly the whole story.

And neither will military action without long term occupation and management.

Sanctions might actually be helping the Iranians more than hurting them for they reinforce the regime's domestic position to an extent.

Thank you. You have made my argument for me.

Regime change and altering the threat environment can lead to roll back.

Regime change usually tends to follow prosperity. Without economic liberalization and prosperity, expectations of any degree of political liberalization are kind of fool hardy.

Tyranny feeds on empty bellies.

Sure you can endorse OIF style regime change if you want but if it does not deliver in Iraq, can we expect it to deliver in Iran?

As to changing the threat environment, I have already advocated that in the case of Iran but this is not possible because it is Barneyesque appeasment some strange reason.

Umm...ah...you opened your last rebuttal with conventional wisdom, did you not?

Be that as it may, tune, payment, payment method, etc. are all negotiable.

Putting the piper aside, history also tells us that if you allow yourself to be decoyed by the Sirens, your ship will be dashed upon the rocks. The Siren song of a ruler's advisers enticing him into ill advised military adventurism has dashed more than one ship of state upon the rocks over the last 5,000 years.

Regards,

William

zraver

Giving guys witha history of agressive action better weapons has never made them peaceful.

I don't agree that war woud turn Iran intoa failed state. The country has a great deal of homogenity and a fucntioning democracy under neath the clerics. If anything the fall of the IIRGC and the clerics would allow Iran to flourish. That would help our allies our interests and the Iranian people.

Not really, they been clumsy and brazen, but no ones been willing to spank them. Acumen would have kept them from being isolated. They burned Russia and China and got slapped with an arms embargo.

It's clsoe enough Quadaffi needed trade to stay in power in an Arab world of rising islamist influence.

I dissagree. The Clerics power rests on the IIRGC and the the nuclear dream. Defeatign them undercuts the central supports giving the dmeocracy a chance.

Only in the short term. They might be mad at us now, but eventually the Iranian people (who are overwhelingly pro western) will be mad at thier govement for not doign something about it. Its human nature.

The US isn't the USSR and the GCC isn't Cuba so the threat envriment is not going to suddenly melt away. And the only way the clerics are going anyhwere is if the Pasadran is taken out. In a way the Pasadran resembles the Templars. They are as much industrialsit now as warriors. Take out their warfighting abilties and hit thier economic interests and they might dump the clerics to save their wallets and privlages.

Uhmmm.....

Which on eof these nations was prosperous when regime change occured

Germany, Japan, Argentina, South Africa, Iraq, Serbia, China, PRC (Gang of five era), Greece (colonels era) Romania, East Germany, USSR, Peru etc. Regime change follows defeat and collapse not prosperity.

empty bellies eat tyrants

Iran can have what ever govemrent it wants so logn as it cannot threaten its neighbors.

We've drawn a line in the sand, if we don't back it up they will simply step across it jsut like last time. Until their actiosn have real consequences any unilaterla moves on our part look like weakness. Any disengagement has to be intiated by Iran. Who ever blinks loses, Kennedy understood this simple fact and Cuba stayed nuclear free.

Umm...ah...you opened your last rebuttal with conventional wisdom, did you not?

Umm...ah...you opened your last rebuttal with conventional wisdom, did you not?

No, not sure if you meant the passage directly above (history isn't indoctrination) or the reply itself (without a doubr capabiltiy equals threat) but neithe rone of conventional wisdowm. 2+2=4 and if you point a loaded gun at me it is a threat. simple statements of fact.

Life only accpets blood and gold. The longer we wait the more of one or both of them it will cost.

Which is the sirens song? "Peace in our time" or "stike now before its too late"

my .02

Guardian

I agree with most of what is being said in this discussion. However, I think absent from this discussion is Iran's theocratic leadership. All of the assessments of threats and international geopolitics that have been said are true, but not entirely accurate when dealing with an Islamic state. Saudi Arabia enforces shari'a and entangles Islam and politics with a good deal of success. Iran has this potential, but Khomeini's revolution did not call for isolationism and strong economic ties with the West. Iran is an ISLAMIC state that sees itself in conflict with the West, Christianity, and the remaining secular world.

Iran may very well just be sabre-rattling in order to increase their security in an otherwise insecure region. However, Ahmadinejad rhetoric is identical to Usama bin Ladin's 12th Imam ideology. Ahmadinejad believes that he will usher in the end times and welcome the return of Al Mahdi. In order to do this, Israel must be destroyed to rid the region of any impurity. Now, there are end times movers and shakers in the US as well. But the US government does not come out support such claims. The mullahs of Iran do. They give Ahmadinejad full support and never criticize his remarks.

This is more about international political power and influence for Iran. They DO want to be a major world player. But just as the US is a perpetuation of the Constitution and our Founding Fathers beliefs, so is Iran the outcome of an Islamic, thoecratic revolution.

This will probably pass just like most threats do. But never before has an extremist islamic nation had nuclear weapons, a strong economy, multiple terrorist allies, or a hardline Islamic ruler who believes that Allah has called him to usher in the end of the world. And do not remember Ahmadinejad's rant at the UN that was not condemned: in a nut shell, "the US is the great Satan" and "Israel the Little Satan."

__________________
The history of the world is but the biography of great men.
-Thomas Carlyle

FibrillatorD

I personally find much hope in the fact that Iran is a remarkably progressive society in comparison with its neighbors. They're well-educated (women too) and despite the whole theocracy thing, quite an open society. Plenty of essentially pro-western college-liberal rallies. Honest journalism. If there's a way to sidestep the nuclear issue (perhaps, as Richardson proposes, a mix of carrots and styx -maintaining the dignity of both Iran and the US), Iran would be a ripe target for the projection of US soft-power.

Guardian

Again, I understand full well Iran's liberal-progressive movement. They even make up a majority of the population (~70% I want to say). But so is this country. So is Israel. But both nations are still controlled by older, bureaucratic, hardliners who do as they wish against the will of the populace. Iran as an ally in the region would benefit the strives for peace. However, Iran has no intention of making an alliance with the Great Satan. Peace is the desired objective of all diplomats...but not diplomats from countries that wish to see the US topple from its hegemonic position.

Question: Do you think Iran would accept a peace proposal if we allowed them do develop nuclear weapons?

Would they halt their desire to destroy Israel?
Would they stop arming Hezbollah?
Would they stop supporting Hamas?
Would they stop arming Shi'ites in Iraq?
Would Iran make good on their relations with so-called "secular" nations like the US and the rest of the West?

I admire your optimism FibrillatorD and even hope that you are right and I am wrong. If we were dealing with a Saddam-controlled Iraq I would have more optimism for peace than I do with Iran the way it is. Even without A-jad, Iran will appoint a president that believes what the Mullahs believe.

Politically, a US-Iran partnership would be SO beneficial to all parties involved including adjacent nations. But RELIGIOUSLY, it would be like the Vatican making strong ties to a nation of leftist satanists. The religious right of Iran would never allow peace with the West. We may not hold the lense of 'righteousness' up to every political situation, but the leaders of Iran do.

FibrillatorD

Peace proposal? Someone should've told me were at war.

Iranian support of Hamas, to whatever degree it exists, probably hasn't helped the US advance its agenda in the region. Neither with Hezbollah. But both countries (Lebanon and Palestine) stage a similarly complicated socio-national religious act that encompasses to some degree each surrounding Islamic or Indian nation. I for one can't reconcile the dispute with my western head. So I won't try, beyond mentioning only that Hezbollah is as much political and humanitarian as it is terroristic. And support for Hamas comes in from Joe Muslim the world over (even, I dare say, from the US). They're both very populist organizations.

So, Palestine aside, do we have any "slam dunks" for the Iranian state pursuing a national policy of Iraq-destabilization?

Note, Iran has a vested interest in seeing a stable Afghanistan. Its pledged half a billion to Afghan reconstruction efforts. Iran was eager for the US to get going with Iraq too, given the bloody history between the two.

That doesn't mean Iran wouldn't also have an interest in influencing as much as possible the future state of Iraq. It seems plausible to assume as much. It just seems counter-intuitive for the Iranians to think their aim will be best advanced by bringing chaos.

Also, from the ME especially, Iranian actions and rhetoric must be assessed for symbolic meaning before the content's read aloud. Israel's a whipping boy, a Dodger which the Yankees and Red Sox could both rally against. Some of the mumbo-jumbo sounds scary alright, especially the barkings of A-jad. But I'd watch these videos of Iranian diplomat and permanent UN ambassador Javad Zarif (and thus, the only permanent Iranian diplomat in America) before you say the Iranian diplomats want to see the US crash and burn. (I found this Newsweek article pretty enlightening as well).

smalltexan

That is an excellent idea, but quite a few Iranians do not want Israel to exist, along with many Palestinians and Hamas, both of whom Iran supports. Israel is the fly in the ointment. Resolving the Israeli-Palestinian issue could engender talks with Iran
A good proposal would be to follow the UK/Sinn Fein peace progress leading to the Good Friday Agreement between the ME countries, to come to some agreement that would allow for talks to begin. A lot of elements in the N. Ireland/British conflict are very similar.

http://www.mahouf.com/press3/108E16.htm
http://www.wesleyjohnson.com/users/i.../19961998.html
http://www.ulst.ac.uk/issues/politic...mmcg170206.htm

Swift Sword

Hi Zraver,

We should not be so concerned at them being peaceful as we should be concerned with them being manageable.

The United States has a proven track record of hemming in people armed with nuclear weapons, people whose rhetoric and actions were several orders of magnitude greater than that being demonstrated by Iran.

War in and of itself will not turn Iran into a failed state I would agree.

However, Iran has some deep, systemic problems that war could very likely exasperate to the point of non recovery.

Look at the forest, not the trees.

Either way, it was a change from within facillitated by much Clinton backed European diplomacy.

Might be a lesson therein.

Giving democracy a chance has never been a supreme interest of the United States in Iran or anywhere else.

The Bush Administration's foreign policy is no exception.

If you recall, the United States supported tyranny in Iran and aided in the suppression of democracy there in the past which is part of the reason we have to deal with these hostile elements in the Iranian polity in the first place.

Lets not be too hasty to judge in this area.

The Iranians may have a taste for many of the trappings of Western culture, but that does not mean they will support the policies of or puppet governments supported by Western nations, especially Western nations which have screwed them in the past.

The Pasadran know what generations of Iranian elites/patricians/powerbrokers/whatever have known: Washington is fickle, far away and many of its policies are ephermal. They also know that their enemies and strategic concerns are right next door, concrete and not going anywhere.

The Pasadran also know what Washington does not: how far along they are in their program and what they are going to do next.

Sorry, I was thinking of the situation as it stands in Iran, not trying to put it into a broader historical context; my fault for not being clear.

My intent was simply to point out the general tendency of authoritarians to use hard times as an excuse for clampdown.

Only if the caloric intake will support revolutionary activity.

...which brings us back to the threat environment: how can you expect any Iranian regime of any persuasion to not develop a deterrent capability when their neighbors pose a threat to them?

My military education has been sadly neglected but it would appear a line in the sand is just like any other fortification: only as good as the people who man it.

If our line in the sand is fortified by people the enemy perceives as foolish and unwise, then it does not have much value as a fortification for our friends and foes both respect wisdom more than folly.

The Iranians and everybody else are evaluating and probing based on analysis of hard actions and policy choices extant in relation to their own interests and that is how they determine credibility.

As to "who blinks loses", if have heard it said that "oft times, the eyes only see correctly when they are closed".

Another simple statement of fact is that if you paint yourself far enough into a corner that you let the other guy define the threat and your own vulnerability, that is considered to be both a tactical and strategic failure.

I have heard it said that "the superior strategist does not put himself in a position where his superior skill is required" as well as "the acme of military skill is to achieve your aims without fighting". Might not be conventional wisdom but it has lead to many more than one victory.

That is a pretty one dimensional view but if we take it at face value for the moment, the glaring corollary is that life always extracts the greatest cost from the fool, not the sage.

It would appear that both of these slogans are discredited...one more than the other, at any rate.

Besides, those slogans are both generally used to sway large masses of people for short term, domestic political gain, not forwarding long term national agendas.

Regards,

William

Swift Sword

Guardian,

1. Religion and politics are two wheels of a cart;

2. I have heard it said that "politics makes strange bedfellows" (slightly OT, but I we ought to open up a thread with a poll to find out the strangest mairrage of the all).

Hope you have a good weekend,

William

Swift Sword

smalltexan and FibD,

I am all for and have whole heartedly advocated bringing the immense soft power assets of the United States to bear on Iran and the rising tide of Islamism in general.

However, if the Bush Administration's handling of Voice of America is any indication, these powerful soft power implements will not be forthcoming.

Letting the enemy run roughshod over us in the most important part of the battlespace has gone on to the point where the neglect ought to be made criminal.

We've got Hollywood and Madison Avenue at our disposal and the other guy is making huge strides passing out audio cassettes and running cheap websites.

Hell of a way to run a war, don't you think?

Regards,

William