Guardian

I apologize for always proposing hypotheticals (especially ones like this) but it is a path of thought I have not hammered out yet. What if Iran turns out to be another North Korea or Libya? I agree that Ahmadinejad's rhetoric is extremely anti-US, anti-Israel, and pro-WWIII, but what if he is just another sabre-rattler? N. Korea touted that their missiles could hit the US. They flexed their muscles and then, quickly, shut their mouths. What if Iran is trying to develop nuclear power? It is unlikely that Iran has no aggressive military intentions, but what if they do not? What if the US and Israel is just being too paranoid? Can the US really handle another war right now? Could the US handle Iran in a conventional war right now?

I am posing many different questions that may or may not be related so that the ensuing discussion covers many topics. I want to think of Iran in a different light as to gain a full perspective. Right now, Ahmadinejad (to me) is a raving Muslim extremist who believes he will usher in the time of the 12th Imam, destroy Israel and the US, and bring about the end of the world. I do not exactly have a high opinion of the man.

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

Officer of Engineers

North Korea shut up because China moved an entire Army Group to the border and shut off her funds and oil.

__________________
Chimo

Dreadnought

Iran need not be a threat if they did:

1) Be forthcoming with the IAEA about the nuclear progress and intentions.

2) Stop threatenting Israel and supplying the arms to Hezbollah.

3) Stop sending weapons into Iraq and become a more responsible neighbor.

4) Give Irans people their basic rights including speech, religion etc.

Even if they do none of this the intelligent people will grow tired of no jobs and housing and election promises from this man and leave the country seeking a better life. Who could possibly blame them. Is that not something we all want...A better life!

__________________
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

omon

imo, iran isn,t a threat, even thou Ahmadinejad is a raving Muslim extremist, he is far from stupid, he knows if he ever gets to use the a bomb, he'll get even more right back, he might be selling weapons to iraq insergents, but he ain,t as bad as pak, taliban came from pak, i just don,t get how come he is our ally, cuz he has a nuke, or he knows something that bush don,t want him to tell?

Swift Sword

Guardian,

Some may construe the Iranians as a threat but objectively, they appear to be the only realistic vehicle by which U.S. grand strategic aims in the Middle East and Central Asia will be achieved.

I am against the proliferation of nuclear weapons as a general principle, but in the case of Iran, the weapons issue is a red herring that serves to distract from the real issues.

The last pro U.S. government of Iran pursued fission weapons, the current anti U.S. government of Iran is pursuing fission weapons and it would be a sucker a bet to wager against the next government not continuing the pursuit regardless of its color or character.

Most of the people on this board are rational enough that if Allah (PBUH) sent them a winged horse to whisk them off to Tehran in a single night where they would be installed as Grand Ayatollah in the morning, they would too would be seeking nuclear weapons.

The Iranian imperative for pursuit of fission weapons is logically and rationally grounded upon the security climate in the region regardless of all that fantasy clap trap that comes out of Ahmadinejad's mouth.

What we have, essentially, is a situation where we need a certain amount of aquiesence, at least, or, cooperation to some degree from Tehran and they need a credible nuclear detterent.

On a more conceptual level, we need their help and they need real security.

This is actually a really good position to open a dialog from since the U.S. is a wholesale purveyor of security (when we are on our A game, at least), and the Iranians are effectively becoming "the cockpit of Asia", as it were.

Furthermore, time is not on the Iranian side. The current populist government appears to be headed towards politically bankruptcy and the political apparatus as a whole will be financially bankrupt in six to eight years according to the smart money.

When we look at Iran as it really is and not as the jingoists would have us believe it is, they do not appear quite as threatening as some seem to think.

One thing is for certain, however: an Iran in a diplomatic orbit that takes them closer to Beijing and Moscow rather than an Anglo-American pole is definitely several magnitudes of threat greater and not productive viz. meeting U.S. goals in the region.

Now this view is not particularly popular with some and this being the W.A.B., contrary opinions will be forthcoming within five minutes ranging from harsh counter battery fire to some fairly well reasoned positions but look for their fruit, not their flower.

Have a good weekend,

William

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

chankya

I agree with Swift Sword above. Iran's identity is more Persian than Muslim. They want to count in the world, be a power in the region that they've historically dominated. That's a legitimate goal. And in a region full of nuclear powers and hostile nuclear powers at that, a nuclear detterent may be the only way out they see .

__________________
"Of all the manifestations of power, restraint impresses men the most." - Thucydides

zraver

Iran is a threat, besides all the Rhetoric Iran has the capability to throttle the wordls economy with or wit out nukes. Now maybe they don't really want war but merely by having the wepaosn they have and placing them where they placed them they are a threat.

The coorelation of force sin the Gulf heavily favors ths US in long run, the problem is the US may not posses enough force in the short run.

smalltexan

On a more conceptual level, we need their help and they need real security.
William[/quote]

That is exactly what the Bush administration has realized far too late.
The Iranians will never trust the US until some compromise is reached with them and the rest of the Middle East over the Israel-Palestine issue. This is the major bone of contention that the whole region shares in common.
Their security is strengthened and nurtured through purchase of nuclear material
from N. Korea, Russia, and the Ukraine. Old, obsolete weapons. But their foot is in the door now. They view the US and Israel as the real threats. The US is viewed as the aggressor now, not Russia or even China. What a 180!
I've read on the BBC News online that Bush and Putin are merely sabre-rattling before their terms of office end next year to please party constituents. This may be true for Bush, but I give Putin more credit than that. Now that the EU is backing the missile defense shield program, I believe we are going to see the next leader of Russia doing the same with our new president.

FibrillatorD

Iraq is a realistic vehicle, some would say.

There's some merit to that, no doubt. I've read literature which says the harsh "kill Israel"-rhetoric is meant to deflect Arab angers to a common enemy.

No no. That's an interesting assessment, I think. Perhaps an accurate one.

In pragmatic, 2008 speak-with-our-vote terms, I'd be interested to see what you think of grouping Iran into a Libya-like scenario after reading Bill Richardson's response to the Iran question here.

Swift Sword

FibD,

Even before the war, Iraq would not have made any serious short list for the role for a few reasons.

In their current and foreseeable state, the Iraqis are non starters. They have been blasted decades behind the curve.

The situation in Iraq is, as a troubador hath quipped, one where "the pump don't work 'cause the vandals took the handles".


Rallying the Volk 'round the flag with visions of foreign bogey has been a political staple around the World for millennia; Iranian rhetoric should be evaluated through this lens.

I can live with Governor Richardson's general position.

I like the way he laid out the situation devoid of the Holocaust denial, burn Israel, etc., etc. grandstanding, hysterical hyperbole that is the grist of the American propagandist these days.

Libya shows that it is possible to roll back both radicalism and proliferation.

Slightly OT, but South Africa shows that it is possible to roll back and renunciate capability as well.

His position regarding the Russians, fuel cycle services, etc. is flawed in a policy relevant time frame, however. We want the Iranians dealing with us and/or partner choices that suit our interests, not Moscow and not Beijing.

Here is a link to to a document which I got a lot of mileage out of that is still a good read:

http://www.ndu.edu/inss/mcnair/mcnair69/McNairPDF.pdf

Hope you had a nice weekend,

William

zraver

Thats not totally honest, Iran's anti-tanker threat is very high and very well developed. They stand a real chance of choking off the oil long enough to cause a global recession. Iran has the tools, the men, the doctrine, the target, and the location to wage a massive oil war. The US's best bet vs this threat is pre-emptive action beofre Iran can mobalize.

Indirect Fire

And if the US does not, Iran will be able to develop its nuke, and use it as a deterrent against any US invasion, and kick up the price of oil.

Maybe I should buy myself a Hazmat suit and a Hybrid in the future.

__________________
I have no idea what I'm doing. Honestly!

zraver

Why would the US invade Iran? Other than some strategically dangeorus Islands the US ha sno need nor want of Iranian real estate.

The very fact that Iran may have nukes someday argues for war now before they do. I dissagree with Swifty that appeasement is the cure. Iran's rhetoric and actiosn argues that it is a dangerous unstable state that must be nutured now, not later.

gunnut

What if Iran is not a threat?

You know, I bet, in the 1990s, someone asked a question in the counter-terrorism circle "what if Al Queda is a threat?"

Someone was probably quick to dismiss him and said something to the effect of "what if Al Queda is not a threat?"

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

Swift Sword

Zraver,

Question: in the grand scheme of things, does capability necessarily translate into threat?

Too, the idea of pre emption...or lets call it what it really is: naked aggression...would not naked U.S. aggression by any practical or international legal standard fully justify what ever retaliatory measures Iran and whatever allies it can muster see fit?

Also, what might the systemic effects of widening our war in the Middle East and Central Asia be?

If we operate on the widely held assumption that the numero uno Iranian offset will be to disrupt energy flows out of the region, than your proposed naked aggression against the Iranians is almost assuredly going to cause just that to happen. Wider war whether they initiate or we initiate is going to lead to just what you seek to prevent with that war in the first place: global recession.

Moving along, if you think that Iran in its current form is a threat to U.S. interests, what kind of threat to U.S. interests do you think Iran as a failed stated will pose?

Iran could fail as a result of widening war in the Middle East or a few years down the line as a result of financial collapse. What we would then have is a belt of instability extending from the beaches of Lebanon to the border of China broken only by shaky Syria.

How would such a situation forward stated U.S. interests in the region? Answer: it won't.

Regards,

William