What if Iran is not a threat? - Page 5

Ray · 07-11-2007, 14:03 PM

Quote:

Ahmadinejobless

By Monica Maggioni

Page 1 of 1
Posted July 2007
Iran’s radical president is sinking fast, and he knows it. Now, there’s only one man who can keep Mahmoud Ahmadinejad out of the unemployment line: George W. Bush.

Majid/Getty Images News
It hurts: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is feeling the political pain.

In Tehran, the mood is quickly shifting. And it’s easy to feel it every time you stop to buy a newspaper, have a coffee, or wait in line at the grocery store. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s star is fading fast.

Since his election in June 2005, Iranians have had conflicted feelings about their president. At first, he evoked interest and curiosity. And there were great expectations from this humble man who was promising economic reform, an anticorruption campaign, and a rigid moral scheme for daily life. Then came fear—when Ahmadinejad began to destroy any chance of good relations with the outside world.

But today in Iran, laughter is supplanting fear. Mocking the president has become a pastime not only for rebellious university students, but also members of the establishment and the government itself.

Behind the high walls of Iranian palaces or in the quiet of Tehran’s parks, Iranian elites will indulge in a quick laugh about the president’s intelligence or his populist bombast. Jokes about his résumé are especially popular. Many refer to his “Ph.D. in traffic” or his letter last May to U.S. President George W. Bush, in which he proclaimed, “I am a teacher.”

The jokes—and who is delivering them—tell the story of a man whose power is on the decline as Iran’s economy collapses around him. Prices for basic goods are skyrocketing, and the government is unable to cope with increasing poverty. Just last month, over 50 Iranian economists sent an open letter excoriating the president’s mismanagement of the economy.

For each public gathering, his loyalists must now arrange hundreds of buses from the remotest and poorest regions of the country. The president’s rented crowds shuffle off the buses for an hour or two and then enjoy Tehran sightseeing, lunch, and dinner paid for by Ahmadinejad’s inner circle in the administration.

Perhaps the best evidence of the president’s decline, though, is the single-digit support obtained by his party in last December’s administrative elections. A personal defeat for Ahmadinejad, the loss reduced his base of support to an elite minority inside the powerful, hard-line Revolutionary Guards, also known as the Pasdaran. It’s this same minority that struggles against any attempt to open Iran’s economy and political system; with their extensive oil holdings, they are unperturbed by the country’s isolation or its economic woes. But even inside the Pasdaran, one can find distinct viewpoints and conflicting interests, which is why Ahmadinejad’s political stronghold is far from secure.

In fact, there are already signs that his job is in jeopardy. Tehran is rife with speculation that Ali Larijani, who is now widely seen as positioning himself for the post-Ahmadinejad era, and Mohammed Baqer Qalibaf, who competed against Ahmadinejad in 2005 and is still popular with members of both conservative and reformist camps, are already working to undermine the president. The next presidential elections are scheduled for June 2009. As a pragmatic conservative and one of Iran’s most prominent politicians, Larijani in particular is likely to do well. To be sure, he is no reformist along the lines of Ahmadinejad’s charismatic predecessor, Mohammed Khatami; in fact, Larijani was happy to see the reformists swept from the political scene following Ahmadinejad’s election. And as his tenacity as Iran’s top nuclear negotiator shows, he would be no shrinking violet on the international stage. At the same time, however, Larijani fairly drips with disdain for his boss, a president he sees as devoid of skill or rational stratagem in dealing with the rest of the world.

But it’s likely that Ahmadinejad’s power will decrease dramatically even before 2009. The elections for Iran’s parliament in March 2008 could represent a turning point if the majority inside the parliament shifts against him. Ahmadinejad still has a strong supporter in Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, who heads the 12-member Guardian Council that holds the political reins in Iran. The Council must clear all candidates for the presidency and parliament. But the Council itself is not monolithic, and it will be impossible to keep all the reformists and pragmatist conservatives out of the electoral race. But even if Ahmadinejad makes it through next spring, many analysts in the country are ready to bet that he won’t be reelected in 2009; the opposition is just too strong, and the economy will likely be in worse straits by that time.

In fact, the only thing that could save him now is the United States. Nobody knows this better than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. As his support within Iran has evaporated, he has cranked up the anti-American rhetoric, and the U.S. military has publicly accused the Pasdaran of arming insurgents in Iraq and even Afghanistan. At this point, the only way Ahmadinejad can revive his flagging fortunes is by uniting his country against an external threat. U.S. officials adamantly maintain that Washington is committed to using diplomacy to resolve the conflict over Iran’s nuclear program and its aggressive role in the region. Yet pressure is mounting in some branches of the Bush administration to take military action against Iran. That pressure should be resisted. For military action would give Mahmoud Ahmadinejad exactly what he wants most: job security.

Monica Maggioni is a Middle East special correspondent for Italy’s RAI TV.
Foreign Policy: Ahmadinejobless

A very interesting commentary that is worth note.

But how far is it correct?

Guardian · 07-11-2007, 14:45 PM

i believe I once read that 70% of Iran's population is under the age of 30. It makes since that A-Jad is losing support amongst Iranians. This man is hellbent on Armageddon and reigning in the 12th Imam. But faultering support for A-Jad does not delegitimize his rhetoric.

Iran is an Islamic theocracy that is run by mullahs. A-jad is a puppet to these mullahs. He carries out the wishes of the mullahs and plays poster boy for Iranian authority. If support for A-Jad flounders, so what. He will be removed from office in the next elections and someone else will take his place. That new person will still be controlled by the mullahs and the ruling theocrats.

The Iranian people do not have to support their leaders for Iran to be a threat to world peace. The only thing necessary for destruction in the Middle East (mainly Israel) is Iran to produce a nuclear weapon. 99% of Iranians could ask for the head of A-Jad but it would not matter if he has developed WMDs. As has been speculated, Iran could give a nuke to Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, hell... any number of radical Palestinian groups would enjoy such power.

A-Jad does not matter. If US Press Secretary Tony Snow were given some decision making powers, he would be as powerful as A-Jad. The theocrats are the real threat. We don't talk enough about religion in this forum, and we should especially in regards to Iran. We mistakenly examine the near future politically, economically, diplomatically, or militarily. The Iranian Revolution was not about equality, democracy, liberty, or human rights; it was about Islam. Iran exists as it does today because of Shi'ite belief structure. The radical belief that these are the end times acts as the motivational factor for Iranian anti-semitism and anti-Americanism. Western diplomats, however talented they may be, can not make the theocrats or A-Jad turn away from radical beliefs that may be leading the Iranian people on a path to war.

S-2 · 07-11-2007, 15:56 PM

"The Iranian people do not have to support their leaders for Iran to be a threat to world peace."

IMHO, true enough. However, short of the mullahs tossing all of us into a global nuclear conflagration today, the active opposition of the Iranian people to the mullocracy might reverse that premise.

It would seem that if the Iranian people see the failed economic and geo-political strategems as executed through the mouth-piece of Ahmedinejad, they would be astute enough to ascertain the same from the next lackey offered up by the mullahs. This article, and others, suggest that the basis for the ridicule which Ahmedinejad receives is based upon economic and geo-political choices made by the mullahs.

I suppose my point is that the Iranian public is proving to be sufficiently perceptive to peer behind the curtain. As such, it's possible that a more fundamental groundswell of dissent is slowly emerging. Nobody should know better than the Iranians whom they are REALLY laughing at. Iraq was always meant to come down to the Iraqis and their desire for a brighter future, or not. So too, hopefully, with the Iranians.

"Western diplomats, however talented they may be, can not make the theocrats or A-Jad turn away from radical beliefs that may be leading the Iranian people on a path to war."

True. But we can jabber their heads off while the Iranian people perhaps do so.

We need a carrot or two. Real dialogue would help, but there's dangers from the expectations which arise from public discourse.

...otherwise, I guess it is war.

We get to make the "war" choice once. Then it's "Cry 'Havoc', and let slip the dogs..."

On the other side of that, nobody knows.

beka · 08-16-2007, 10:44 AM

Quote:

1- you assume we have a grand strategy

2- for personal religious reasons I prefer to keep the survival of the Jewish state a very high priority.

And people criticize the Iranian President as a religious fundamentalist, who is using his personal end time theology as a means to set up Armagedon.

I'm not opposed to the creation of a Jewish state, but the way by which this particular Jewish state was created and is sustained leads a bad taste in my mouth. When you look at the principles of peace and justice, and merely the idea that according to Christianity, in Christ there is neither Jew or Gentile.

Quite frankly, I wish the United States would take a more neutral role in the Arab/Israeli conflict. In my opinion, the Israelis are hardly an innocent party in this mess. They, knew when they chose to go into Israel that they were going to be facing a hostile native population, a native population that would regard them as invaders... The Israelis may regard there as actions as self defense, but I have a feeling that the Palestinians and the other Arabs feel that fighting the Israelis is self defense as well. In fact, I remember reading an article when there was talking of building a Jewish state in Palestinian. The then King of Jordan, went out and spoke against it. He basically said if Israel is built, we will regard it as an invasion, and we will feel that we have no choice but to fight you.

As for Iran, I don't necessarily think that if Iran gets the bomb, that it means they will necessarily use it. The Islamic Republic of Iran has never attacked another nation. They don't necessarily have a death wish. As for the Iranians funding terrorist groups and groups that are anti-US, I don't like it. But hey guess what, the United States funds similar types of groups.

As for Iraq, if the Iranians invaded Canada, I have a feeling that the United States at the very least would fund groups that would try to get the Iranians out of Canada. Because given the relationships between us and Iran, we would not want them on our border. Personally, I think in Iran you have a similar situation. The Iranians want the United States out, and they want the United States now. They do not want us surrounding them.

I don't like Iran, but I think that people are a bit irrational when it comes to Iran. I have a really hard time believing that the Iranians are going to nuke Israel. Why would they want to fight a battle they know that they cannot win, and that would annihalte them. They aren't dumb. It is far more likely that Iran wants nukes as a detterant against an attack from Israel, and/ or an attack from Pakistan.

Another thing, a person mentioned that perpetual war worked well for Rome, British empire etc. I'd like to point out that perpetual war and empire is not exactly congruent for a democracy. AT one time, the Roman state was a republic, it wasn't perfect democracy, but there was some representational government. But the more powerful Rome got militarily, the more powerful the miltary got, and eventually the Roman empire became ruled by a tyrant.

The British in many ways had to choose between their democracy/and their empire. Because after awhile, how could a so called democratic state rule places like India, undemocratically. Oh, we can have an empire, but at what cost?

Dwarven Pirate · 08-20-2007, 18:14 PM

Quote:

And people criticize the Iranian President as a religious fundamentalist, who is using his personal end time theology as a means to set up Armagedon.

Hahahah... and here I thought Bush and Sharon were the only ones suspected of this.

I do not believe that Iran poses any threat, period, to the US in military or public safety terms. I think they pose very little threat to Israel as well, at least for the time being and perhaps the next 20 years, considering what is happening right next door to them, in every direction they look (with the possible exception of northwards).

They may however pose a serious economic threat to America, having to do with their oil and transit of northern oil through their borders. Trade deals with china and russia and the old idea of abandoning the dollar as the preferred currency for oil transactions.

Iran desires nuclear weaponry. So does every other country in the world that faces military threats on its borders. Would they use them pre-emptively if they had them? I dont know, but I doubt it. It would take a madman to do so, no matter how much the Iranian population may despise Israel. And Israel, not America, is where they would be pointed, of course.

I wonder how it would play out were America to simply sell Iran the weapons and technology in return for oil rights and military bases (or what have you).

Shamus · 08-20-2007, 18:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dwarven Pirate

Hahahah... and here I thought Bush and Sharon were the only ones suspected of this.

I do not believe that Iran poses any threat, period, to the US in military or public safety terms. I think they pose very little threat to Israel as well, at least for the time being and perhaps the next 20 years, considering what is happening right next door to them, in every direction they look (with the possible exception of northwards).

They may however pose a serious economic threat to America, having to do with their oil and transit of northern oil through their borders. Trade deals with china and russia and the old idea of abandoning the dollar as the preferred currency for oil transactions.

Iran desires nuclear weaponry. So does every other country in the world that faces military threats on its borders. Would they use them pre-emptively if they had them? I dont know, but I doubt it. It would take a madman to do so, no matter how much the Iranian population may despise Israel. And Israel, not America, is where they would be pointed, of course.

I wonder how it would play out were America to simply sell Iran the weapons and technology in return for oil rights and military bases (or what have you).

Welcome to the WAB,why not sail over to the Member Introductions forum and post a thread so the members can get to know you.While you're there,how about being a good little buccaneer,fill out your member profile and tell us a bit about yourself

.

gunnut · 08-20-2007, 20:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dwarven Pirate

Hahahah... and here I thought Bush and Sharon were the only ones suspected of this.

I do not believe that Iran poses any threat, period, to the US in military or public safety terms. I think they pose very little threat to Israel as well, at least for the time being and perhaps the next 20 years, considering what is happening right next door to them, in every direction they look (with the possible exception of northwards).

Are you willing to wait 20 years to find out if they are a serious threat? Or would you like to "connect the dots" and stop them from becoming the threat?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dwarven Pirate

They may however pose a serious economic threat to America, having to do with their oil and transit of northern oil through their borders. Trade deals with china and russia and the old idea of abandoning the dollar as the preferred currency for oil transactions.

We don't buy oil from Iran.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dwarven Pirate

Iran desires nuclear weaponry. So does every other country in the world that faces military threats on its borders.

And we have dissuaded even some of our allies to give up the nuke ambition. Taiwan was pursuing nuclear weapons in the 80s. We stopped them despite them being our ally.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dwarven Pirate

Would they use them pre-emptively if they had them? I dont know, but I doubt it. It would take a madman to do so, no matter how much the Iranian population may despise Israel. And Israel, not America, is where they would be pointed, of course.

And you're sure A-jad is not a madman? You're sure he wouldn't use it even if he had it? How about someone else? The next leader of Iran? The one after that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dwarven Pirate

I wonder how it would play out were America to simply sell Iran the weapons and technology in return for oil rights and military bases (or what have you).

You want us to sell Iran weapons that they can use to bring down our planes flying in Iraq? Destroy our vehicles in Iraq? Kill our soldiers in Iraq? Are you willing to risk that all on a hunch?

We have done all that you've said in the 70s. We sold the Shah our most sophisticated weapon systems in return for oil. Look what happend. And that was to a "friendly" government.

**astralis** · 08-21-2007, 00:02 AM

gunnut,

well, not really playing the devil's advocate here, really just adding a few things.

Quote:

Are you willing to wait 20 years to find out if they are a serious threat? Or would you like to "connect the dots" and stop them from becoming the threat?

actually, i think with the iranian economy going down the tubes (a process already undergoing, but vastly sped-up by a-jad's complete incompetence), they're not going to be much of a threat to anyone real soon.

Quote:

We don't buy oil from Iran.

allies such as japan do, but that soon won't be a problem either.

OpinionJournal - Extra

Sacked Iran minister warns of energy 'catastrophe' - Forbes.com

Quote:

And we have dissuaded even some of our allies to give up the nuke ambition. Taiwan was pursuing nuclear weapons in the 80s. We stopped them despite them being our ally.

i've heard that argument before from quite a few foreign policy experts, so you're in good company. however, as i said to them, the ROC was/is an ally, and so more open to american pressure. persuading friends to drop a nuke program is do-able. persuading an enemy is a lot harder, especially when we talk about finishing said enemy off.

Quote:

And you're sure A-jad is not a madman? You're sure he wouldn't use it even if he had it? How about someone else? The next leader of Iran? The one after that?

the presidency in iran is a position with limited power. final control of the most important political decisions (namely the power of war and peace) remains in the hands of the ayatollah, whom usually reach their position due to a very finely honed sense of self-preservation. inviting nuclear apocalypse, well...

Quote:

We have done all that you've said in the 70s. We sold the Shah our most sophisticated weapon systems in return for oil. Look what happend. And that was to a "friendly" government.

we're doing it to the other "friendly" authoritarian regimes in the middle east, too. the difference is that they perceive US power and they want to bandwagon with us; iran wants to try to balance us.

i imagine we can play a pretty good game with the iranian government. as a carrot, we should tell them that scrapping their nuclear program will lead to free trade pacts, and economic aid. as a stick, harsh sanctions. advertise that loudly around iran. if they accept, so much the better; if they don't....let's see how long the people of iran will thank the ayatollahs for bringing them economic catastrophe.

Dwarven Pirate · 08-21-2007, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnut

Are you willing to wait 20 years to find out if they are a serious threat? Or would you like to "connect the dots" and stop them from becoming the threat? We don't buy oil from Iran. And we have dissuaded even some of our allies to give up the nuke ambition. Taiwan was pursuing nuclear weapons in the 80s. We stopped them despite them being our ally. And you're sure A-jad is not a madman? You're sure he wouldn't use it even if he had it? How about someone else? The next leader of Iran? The one after that? You want us to sell Iran weapons that they can use to bring down our planes flying in Iraq? Destroy our vehicles in Iraq? Kill our soldiers in Iraq? Are you willing to risk that all on a hunch? We have done all that you've said in the 70s. We sold the Shah our most sophisticated weapon systems in return for oil. Look what happend. And that was to a "friendly" government.

Thank you for the response to my meanderings. In reply to gunnut, I'll say first that waiting for "the threat" to materialise suits me very well, considering that I believe there is no threat, militarilly speaking. As to the US(?) not buying oil from Iran, this isnt relevant to my point. What I was pointing out was that oil trades effected in any currency other than US dollars could pose a serious threat to American economic interests, and is/has been threatened by both Iran and Iraq (prior to our latest invasion). Here is a link to one journalistic story regarding this:

Project Censored Media Democracy in Action

(The website you may find in some question compared to, say, the NYT or something, but there are sources and further reading presented. I believe I first read of this a couple years ago, but it was another article.)

Is Ahm..... (cant rememver the spelling offhand) a madman or will the next leader be? Well, who can say. Is Kim Il Jong a madman? Or Vladimir Putin. Or the next popular leader of Pakistan? Or the leader of Israel? I am not a fortune-teller. All we know is that no one has used these weapons except America, when they were initially developed. Does that make Truman a madman?

Or does the fact that Truman did use them on the Japanese mean that they were justified in making the pre-emptive strike against Pearl Harbor? This seems to be the usual justification for invading Iran that people make... At any rate, I feel assured in saying that causing terrible destruction now in order to guard against the mere chance of terrible destruction in future is basically irrational.

Finally, you say that we sold our tech to Iran in the seventies and "look what happened". Well, what happened, please? Seems to me they got in a big fight with our big enemy, Iraq. I do see your point here, but it seems a poor example. I would rather use our support of Iraq and Afghanistan for this, but then we sell weaponry to so many countries.

I do not mean to advocate the selling of technologies to Iran (or anyone else for that matter). It was only a wayward and radical thought. I do not think it possible to stop them from eventually obtaining these things in question, without basically destroying their country, which action I do not now support.

S-2 · 08-21-2007, 13:12 PM

From PARAMETERS, the U.S. Army War College Quarterly, Gawdat Bahgat argues the case for engagement-

Iran and the United States: The Emerging Security Paradigm in the Middle East

Meanwhile, the National Review offers these predictable thoughts-

The Enemy Late Acknowledged

Surprisingly reinforced by these from the WAPO-

Tougher On Iran

Dwarven Pirate, you said,

"At any rate, I feel assured in saying that causing terrible destruction now in order to guard against the mere chance of terrible destruction in future is basically irrational."

Depends upon the relative levels of destruction and the means employed. Measured against the assurance of Tel Aviv becoming utterly irradiated ("terrible destruction") should your "mere chance" come to pass, a successful pre-emptive conventional attack against Iranian nuclear facilities and ancillary operations ("terrible destruction now") doesn't seem a bit irrational by my calculus.

Eliminating that capability may come at considerably less cost than you premise and would certainly be a rational consideration given the assured consequences of your "mere chance".

gunnut · 08-21-2007, 16:49 PM

Dwarven Pirate, I don't mean that we should nuke Iran or invade Iran to neutralize the threat. I mean we should use whatever tools at our disposal to contain the possible threat. Use diplomatic pressure, internal pressure from its citizens, convince its neighbors to help out, and as a last resort, bomb any and all suspected weapons site.

A lot of the liberals like to use the argument that anyone should be allowed to have nuclear weapons because we have them. Well, let's say we let Iran and NK have nuclear weapons. Do we allow SK, Japan, Taiwan, and Saudi Arabia to have nuclear weapons? Then their neighbors will want nukes. And on and on.

If I recall, Iran was part of the nuclear non proliferation treaty signee. That alone should have legal and binding power to deter them from developing nuclear weapons.

Dwarven Pirate · 08-22-2007, 03:08 AM

[quote=S-2;399758]Depends upon the relative levels of destruction and the means employed. Measured against the assurance of Tel Aviv becoming utterly irradiated ("terrible destruction") should your "mere chance" come to pass, a successful pre-emptive conventional attack against Iranian nuclear facilities and ancillary operations ("terrible destruction now") doesn't seem a bit irrational by my calculus.QUOTE]

Yeah, it would seem to be, couched in those terms. But in order for that "successful pre-emptive conventional attack against Iranian nuclear facilities and ancillary operations" to be effective it must be the end of it.

I mean, what is to stop them trying again somewhere else? Because I would expect them to try again, and again. Are we going to do this every five or ten years forever?

Anyhow, I dont think this is what the US is contemplating, really. If this is what we wanted, I think we would just go ahead and do it. All the debate and cetera leads me to believe it is something much greater that we have in mind for Iran. More along the lines of our endeavours in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Thanks for the links, I, for one, am going to read them.

gunnut,

I think I did suspect you were referring to nuclear strike or invasion. Sorry! And I agree, signators to treaties ought to abide by them.

As to the position you speak of regarding the possession of nukes, I would agree with them on a strictly moral basis. But we would be fools to stand on principle where the survival of the species is involved, lol.

Dwarven Pirate · 08-22-2007, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S-2

Iran and the United States: The Emerging Security Paradigm in the Middle East

I have a couple of problems with this article. For instance, he suggests that Iran may want nukes for imperialistic reasons, but I fail to see how one will want to capture territory with nuclear weapons.

"Despite this ambitious military build-up, Iranian officials emphasize that their country does not make any claim on the territory of its neighbors. They also remind possible opponents that Iran has not initiated a regional conflict for more than 200 years.11 Iran’s rivals are nevertheless suspicious of these claims and of the Islamic Republic’s intentions. This suspicion has focused on Tehran’s nuclear ambitions since the early 2000s."

Second, the quote of Ahmadinejad saying "wipe Israel off the map". Its my understanding that not only was he merely quoting Khomeini, but that the sentiment was actually much less inflammatory, more properly translated as 'the Israeli regime must pass from the pages of time', speaking of not Israel the nation, but its ruling elite and Zionist dogma. Of course, it could be that the places I read this were mistaken instead, but you can decide for yourself. I would post links, but google does a quick, simple job of it:

the israeli regime must pass from the page of time - Google Search

Third, the passages regarding air power dont really jibe. He makes the point that air power in the late Israel-Hezbollah conflict was ineffective after they ran out of targets, then goes on to warn that it will likely also be ineffective if US attacks nuclear facilities. Well, wouldnt they be the targets, and once gone the offensive use of air power would end? So why the warning? Am I being obtuse, or is he dissembling?

Finally, what seems to amount to the main point of the article, where he offers commentary on whether or not Iran is to be trusted with nuclear weaponry (and perhaps more importantly whether Israel would stand for it). All he offers is the following article which seems to me to be pretty far out in space:

Free Article - WSJ.com

Here is some commentary on that:

The Arabist » Bernard Lewis: Armegeddon in two weeks
Now we have regional experts telling us who's undeterrable? (Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog)

So, this brings us right back to the question of are the Iranians madmen or not, lol.

This other articles are interesting, but what I find interesting about it them is the question of to what end this designation is given. What is to be gained by it from our point of view? Do we expect Iran to dissolve the units involved? Intuitively, I expect that its simply semantics laid in place for justification of future military action against Iran. Just one more arrow pointing toward our intentions.

S-2 · 08-23-2007, 01:10 AM

Thanks for your thoughts.

I, too, have some issues with the article.

You said,

"For instance, he suggests that Iran may want nukes for imperialistic reasons, but I fail to see how one will want to capture territory with nuclear weapons."

I didn't note "imperialistic" reasons but rather nationalistic self-gratification as a technical source of Persian pride and reflecting Iran's rightful status as a regional hegemon. Moreover, this elevated sense of self-esteem would likely arise regardless of a weaponized nuclear program. Achieving the fuel cycle would suffice.

MEMRI may concur with Juan Cole, but a re-read of MEMRI's translation of Ahmedinejad's comments is nonetheless frightening. More to the point, Ahmedinejad has an accumulating history of comments along these mystic/spiritual/apolcalyptic lines of thinking.

"...then goes on to warn that it will likely also be ineffective if US attacks nuclear facilities. Well, wouldnt they be the targets, and once gone the offensive use of air power would end?"

Not necessarily for a variety of reasons, foremost being that the Iranians have given this matter considerable thought as well. As such, their nuclear facilities have undergone various stages of redundancy, hardening, and dispersal. Those are the locations and facilities of which we're aware. Then there are facilities of which we are unaware. They are camouflaged and shall remain so as long as possible. Then there is the knowledge base. That much is very likely near out of the bag. The Iranians probably know how to construct a nuke- in theory.

The provided example, in my estimation was a poor attempt to say that air-power, given a difficult targeting environment, can't guarantee the elimination of discrete targets. As such, the warning offered would extend to the attack of ancillary targets, such as power plants and comms facilities necessary to the effective operation of a modern nuclear facility under military control. This increases the liklihood of success. However, attacking dual-service targets may affect the general population-a social and political complication to any attack plan. That's how I read that section.

In answer to your thoughts about designation of the Pasdaran as a terrorist organization, the inestimable Ralph Peters would agree with you-

"...the move lets our government go after the Revolutionary Guards' finances and the international companies that cut deals with Tehran's thugs.

The [actual] real reason for the move is to set up a legal basis for airstrikes or special operations raids on the Guard's bases in Iran."

Whacking Iran

"So, this brings us right back to the question of are the Iranians madmen or not, lol."

Dwarven Pirate, there's a culminating point somewhere not too far down the road. Iran, to date IMHO, has not played "rational actor" very well. There's a dynamic of brinksmanship to their diplomacy which is alarming to Iran's immediate neighbors. S.A. and the GCC emirates remember too well Iran's attempt to close Hormuz during the "tanker war" of 1988. Further, the internal decision-making appartus of the Iranian leadership lacks any semblance of transparency. That's a dangerous condition when contemplating future relations with a nuclear-armed Iran.

Dwarven Pirate · 08-23-2007, 04:25 AM

nationalistic self-gratification as a technical source of Persian pride and reflecting Iran's rightful status as a regional hegemon.(according to them I assume)

Gotcha. All I'll say to that is that the passage in question is poorly written if that was the author's intention.

The provided example, in my estimation was a poor attempt to say that air-power, given a difficult targeting environment, can't guarantee the elimination of discrete targets. As such, the warning offered would extend to the attack of ancillary targets, such as power plants and comms facilities necessary to the effective operation of a modern nuclear facility under military control. This increases the liklihood of success. However, attacking dual-service targets may affect the general population-a social and political complication to any attack plan. That's how I read that section.

Hence the errant thought that he was perhaps dissembling, and leaving the gates open here for an unstated assumption of the use of ground forces. But then, I suppose that this is in keeping with the purpose of the article and cant be considered some sort of deception, true or not.

there's a culminating point somewhere not too far down the road. Iran, to date IMHO, has not played "rational actor" very well. ... Further, the internal decision-making appartus of the Iranian leadership lacks any semblance of transparency.

MEMRI may concur with Juan Cole, but a re-read of MEMRI's translation of Ahmedinejad's comments is nonetheless frightening. More to the point, Ahmedinejad has an accumulating history of comments along these mystic/spiritual/apolcalyptic lines of thinking.

I'd like to explore this further. I did find this expansion of Ahmadinejad's specific statements, but whether or not it constitutes the entire speech or not I cannot discern:

BNet-Govinfo: Facts - Extended excerpt - what Ahmadinejad actually said

...and you are right, on the face of it, it is fairly aggressive. Even extremely aggressive and inflammatory (tho the original quote as portrayed in US media is nevertheless misleading, I think). And I am willing to accept that he has given many other speeches along these lines. But most of what I gather is that, Mahdism aside, this sort of rhetoric is a very good reflection of the thoughts of the man on the street not only in Iran but most other Islamic-dominated countries in the middle east. While the ruling elite remain pro-west, the common man sympathizes directly with Palestine.

What I am saying is that these statements serve him in retaining popular support, and may very well be nothing more. I do not think this view would be naive, either. Looking at our own politicians it is easy to see how often there is not only a gap between what is said and what is done but at times a complete about-face.

Further, how much power does the President of Iran actually have? Can he declare war or launch nuclear missiles on his own responsibility? Isn't the nominal head of government the Imam, Khamenei (sp?)? I have read, albeit from only one source, that Ahmadinejad has very little to do with the actual foreign policy of his nation. That is worth finding out before we equate his sentiments with those of the nation. The executive branch has no control over the military in Iran, at least. [The US has its own nutjobs (IMO) in the house and senate and various executive positions, but we dont worry overmuch at their diatribes.]

Even the Imam can be removed peacefully from power by the Assembly of Experts in the case that he decides to act against the interests of the nation.
(Probably impractible tho, much like our own impeachment processes. Actually, as an aside, I have a little admiration for their form of government after a cursory once-over. I find it very reassuring that they guarantee their minorities a seat and voice in parliament, including their Jewish citizens.)

Here is the opinion piece that helped get me thinking along these lines. I doubt many people here would agree with his politics, but the things he says about thinking out of the box (basically) are very interesting to me:

Quote:

After the United States invaded Iraq, "Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy," said Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld.

Surely no sane person wants Iran (or anyone) to develop nuclear weapons. A reasonable solution to the crisis would permit Iran to develop nuclear energy, in accord with its rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but not nuclear weapons. Is that outcome feasible? It would be, under one condition: that the United States and Iran were functioning democratic societies, in which public opinion has a significant impact on public policy, overcoming the huge gulf that now exists on many critical issues, including this one.

That reasonable solution has overwhelming support among Iranians and Americans, who ag

07-11-2007, 14:45 PM	#62 (permalink)
Guardian Regular Join Date: 02-08-07 Location: Minneapolis Posts: 56 Country:	i believe I once read that 70% of Iran's population is under the age of 30. It makes since that A-Jad is losing support amongst Iranians. This man is hellbent on Armageddon and reigning in the 12th Imam. But faultering support for A-Jad does not delegitimize his rhetoric. Iran is an Islamic theocracy that is run by mullahs. A-jad is a puppet to these mullahs. He carries out the wishes of the mullahs and plays poster boy for Iranian authority. If support for A-Jad flounders, so what. He will be removed from office in the next elections and someone else will take his place. That new person will still be controlled by the mullahs and the ruling theocrats. The Iranian people do not have to support their leaders for Iran to be a threat to world peace. The only thing necessary for destruction in the Middle East (mainly Israel) is Iran to produce a nuclear weapon. 99% of Iranians could ask for the head of A-Jad but it would not matter if he has developed WMDs. As has been speculated, Iran could give a nuke to Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, hell... any number of radical Palestinian groups would enjoy such power. A-Jad does not matter. If US Press Secretary Tony Snow were given some decision making powers, he would be as powerful as A-Jad. The theocrats are the real threat. We don't talk enough about religion in this forum, and we should especially in regards to Iran. We mistakenly examine the near future politically, economically, diplomatically, or militarily. The Iranian Revolution was not about equality, democracy, liberty, or human rights; it was about Islam. Iran exists as it does today because of Shi'ite belief structure. The radical belief that these are the end times acts as the motivational factor for Iranian anti-semitism and anti-Americanism. Western diplomats, however talented they may be, can not make the theocrats or A-Jad turn away from radical beliefs that may be leading the Iranian people on a path to war. __________________ The history of the world is but the biography of great men. -Thomas Carlyle

07-11-2007, 15:56 PM	#63 (permalink)
S-2 *Military Professional* Join Date: 09-11-06 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 2,110 Country:	Guardian Reply "The Iranian people do not have to support their leaders for Iran to be a threat to world peace." IMHO, true enough. However, short of the mullahs tossing all of us into a global nuclear conflagration today, the active opposition of the Iranian people to the mullocracy might reverse that premise. It would seem that if the Iranian people see the failed economic and geo-political strategems as executed through the mouth-piece of Ahmedinejad, they would be astute enough to ascertain the same from the next lackey offered up by the mullahs. This article, and others, suggest that the basis for the ridicule which Ahmedinejad receives is based upon economic and geo-political choices made by the mullahs. I suppose my point is that the Iranian public is proving to be sufficiently perceptive to peer behind the curtain. As such, it's possible that a more fundamental groundswell of dissent is slowly emerging. Nobody should know better than the Iranians whom they are REALLY laughing at. Iraq was always meant to come down to the Iraqis and their desire for a brighter future, or not. So too, hopefully, with the Iranians. "Western diplomats, however talented they may be, can not make the theocrats or A-Jad turn away from radical beliefs that may be leading the Iranian people on a path to war." True. But we can jabber their heads off while the Iranian people perhaps do so. We need a carrot or two. Real dialogue would help, but there's dangers from the expectations which arise from public discourse. ...otherwise, I guess it is war. We get to make the "war" choice once. Then it's "Cry 'Havoc', and let slip the dogs..." On the other side of that, nobody knows. __________________ "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski

08-21-2007, 13:12 PM	#70 (permalink)
S-2 *Military Professional* Join Date: 09-11-06 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 2,110 Country:	More On Iran From PARAMETERS, the U.S. Army War College Quarterly, Gawdat Bahgat argues the case for engagement- Iran and the United States: The Emerging Security Paradigm in the Middle East Meanwhile, the National Review offers these predictable thoughts- The Enemy Late Acknowledged Surprisingly reinforced by these from the WAPO- Tougher On Iran Dwarven Pirate, you said, "At any rate, I feel assured in saying that causing terrible destruction now in order to guard against the mere chance of terrible destruction in future is basically irrational." Depends upon the relative levels of destruction and the means employed. Measured against the assurance of Tel Aviv becoming utterly irradiated ("terrible destruction") should your "mere chance" come to pass, a successful pre-emptive conventional attack against Iranian nuclear facilities and ancillary operations ("terrible destruction now") doesn't seem a bit irrational by my calculus. Eliminating that capability may come at considerably less cost than you premise and would certainly be a rational consideration given the assured consequences of your "mere chance".

08-23-2007, 01:10 AM	#74 (permalink)
S-2 *Military Professional* Join Date: 09-11-06 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 2,110 Country:	Dwarven Pirate Thanks for your thoughts. I, too, have some issues with the article. You said, "For instance, he suggests that Iran may want nukes for imperialistic reasons, but I fail to see how one will want to capture territory with nuclear weapons." I didn't note "imperialistic" reasons but rather nationalistic self-gratification as a technical source of Persian pride and reflecting Iran's rightful status as a regional hegemon. Moreover, this elevated sense of self-esteem would likely arise regardless of a weaponized nuclear program. Achieving the fuel cycle would suffice. MEMRI may concur with Juan Cole, but a re-read of MEMRI's translation of Ahmedinejad's comments is nonetheless frightening. More to the point, Ahmedinejad has an accumulating history of comments along these mystic/spiritual/apolcalyptic lines of thinking. "...then goes on to warn that it will likely also be ineffective if US attacks nuclear facilities. Well, wouldnt they be the targets, and once gone the offensive use of air power would end?" Not necessarily for a variety of reasons, foremost being that the Iranians have given this matter considerable thought as well. As such, their nuclear facilities have undergone various stages of redundancy, hardening, and dispersal. Those are the locations and facilities of which we're aware. Then there are facilities of which we are unaware. They are camouflaged and shall remain so as long as possible. Then there is the knowledge base. That much is very likely near out of the bag. The Iranians probably know how to construct a nuke- in theory. The provided example, in my estimation was a poor attempt to say that air-power, given a difficult targeting environment, can't guarantee the elimination of discrete targets. As such, the warning offered would extend to the attack of ancillary targets, such as power plants and comms facilities necessary to the effective operation of a modern nuclear facility under military control. This increases the liklihood of success. However, attacking dual-service targets may affect the general population-a social and political complication to any attack plan. That's how I read that section. In answer to your thoughts about designation of the Pasdaran as a terrorist organization, the inestimable Ralph Peters would agree with you- "...the move lets our government go after the Revolutionary Guards' finances and the international companies that cut deals with Tehran's thugs. The [actual] real reason for the move is to set up a legal basis for airstrikes or special operations raids on the Guard's bases in Iran." Whacking Iran "So, this brings us right back to the question of are the Iranians madmen or not, lol." Dwarven Pirate, there's a culminating point somewhere not too far down the road. Iran, to date IMHO, has not played "rational actor" very well. There's a dynamic of brinksmanship to their diplomacy which is alarming to Iran's immediate neighbors. S.A. and the GCC emirates remember too well Iran's attempt to close Hormuz during the "tanker war" of 1988. Further, the internal decision-making appartus of the Iranian leadership lacks any semblance of transparency. That's a dangerous condition when contemplating future relations with a nuclear-armed Iran.

08-21-2007, 16:49 PM	#71 (permalink)
gunnut *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 01-27-06 Location: DPRK, Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia Posts: 9,365 Country:	Dwarven Pirate, I don't mean that we should nuke Iran or invade Iran to neutralize the threat. I mean we should use whatever tools at our disposal to contain the possible threat. Use diplomatic pressure, internal pressure from its citizens, convince its neighbors to help out, and as a last resort, bomb any and all suspected weapons site. A lot of the liberals like to use the argument that anyone should be allowed to have nuclear weapons because we have them. Well, let's say we let Iran and NK have nuclear weapons. Do we allow SK, Japan, Taiwan, and Saudi Arabia to have nuclear weapons? Then their neighbors will want nukes. And on and on. If I recall, Iran was part of the nuclear non proliferation treaty signee. That alone should have legal and binding power to deter them from developing nuclear weapons.

08-22-2007, 03:08 AM	#72 (permalink)
Dwarven Pirate Contributor Join Date: 08-20-07 Posts: 325	[quote=S-2;399758]Depends upon the relative levels of destruction and the means employed. Measured against the assurance of Tel Aviv becoming utterly irradiated ("terrible destruction") should your "mere chance" come to pass, a successful pre-emptive conventional attack against Iranian nuclear facilities and ancillary operations ("terrible destruction now") doesn't seem a bit irrational by my calculus.QUOTE] Yeah, it would seem to be, couched in those terms. But in order for that "successful pre-emptive conventional attack against Iranian nuclear facilities and ancillary operations" to be effective it must be the end of it. I mean, what is to stop them trying again somewhere else? Because I would expect them to try again, and again. Are we going to do this every five or ten years forever? Anyhow, I dont think this is what the US is contemplating, really. If this is what we wanted, I think we would just go ahead and do it. All the debate and cetera leads me to believe it is something much greater that we have in mind for Iran. More along the lines of our endeavours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thanks for the links, I, for one, am going to read them. gunnut, I think I did suspect you were referring to nuclear strike or invasion. Sorry! And I agree, signators to treaties ought to abide by them. As to the position you speak of regarding the possession of nukes, I would agree with them on a strictly moral basis. But we would be fools to stand on principle where the survival of the species is involved, lol.