+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 15 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 214

Thread: Endgame in Iran?

  1. #16
    Regular Countezero's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Dec 09
    Posts
    99
    Country: United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Parihaka View Post
    Where have you been? The Iranians have been offered an enormous variation of packages and assistance in developing and maintaining a civilian nuclear structure. It has refused every single attempt, and made no concessions of any kind.
    I am aware of that, which is why I think they want a bomb. I am also aware that Iran views all these attempts as little more than other nations trying to buy off its program. It knows a bomb gets it more toward the hegemonic and regional goals it wants than caving, so it continues. The way to change that thinking is to give them another way to get what they want (or at least one that allows them to think they have gotten it).

    Quote Originally Posted by Parihaka View Post
    It continues to grow and augment that illegal programme all the while offering rhetoric which calls for the total destruction of another nation state.
    The A-man's rhetoric is just that. He doesn't even control the armed forces or any bomb that gets developed. What he says plays to the street and it plays to all the people who hate the fact that Israel has a bomb.

    I don't really think Iran want to initiate a nuclear attack on Israel, do you? What would it gain? The counterattack would destroy it and destroy any chance it has to achieve aforementioned regional goals. Consider to that Iran hasn't attacked any nation, militarily, for as long as anyone can remember. It's a rationale actor, with discernible goals. Even the Revolutionary rhetoric has calmed in recent times, though I still think the country a wretched hive of scum and international banditry.

    Quote Originally Posted by Parihaka View Post
    Iran can trade freely on the world market including purchasing weapons.
    That's not entirely true. Iran's position in the world and the restrictions the US and others have placed on it have severely damaged the economy, while at the same time, doing little to hurt the actual regime. It has been unable to update its weapons programs, for example, largely because the US makes it difficult for countries to sell them arms. Expanded trade with the US and Europe would be one carrot that could be dangled to the Iranians. It certainly would be good for the region (and it would weaken Russia).

    Quote Originally Posted by Parihaka View Post
    So what, apart from validating every illegal act that Iran has so far committed, would your summit achieve again? Apart from nothing, which you've already said.
    I can't predict the future. Obama could get nothing. Or Obama could go and the two sides could bury the hatchet for the past 30 years of irrational fear and hatred (Heck, even Reagan wanted to talk to the Iranians). The more likely outcome is something in the middle. My point is that talking never hurt (see Detente) and if this is really an urgent matter, ruling out talking seems rather ridiculous. Again, it's not a zero sum gain. If he goes and gets nothing, he can turn it into a win by giving a "Tear down this wall" kind of speech that says the world now knows what the regime wants. That's powerful stuff, if you ask me.

  2. #17
    S2
    S2 is offline

    Military Professional
    Military Professional S2's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 06
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    8,252
    Country: United States

    Iranian Democracy

    There's no guarantee that an Iranian democracy would see this issue of nuclear weapons any differently. In that respect, a new government that rides the will of the people to power is going to have a nationalist bent regardless.

    "And I'm not convinced an air-strike would work..."

    It would be a sustained air campaign carried over a series of raids and, likely, an extended period of time. Key is knocking down the IADS and keeping it down while neutralizing all retaliatory means to the greatest extent possible.

    Once done, game on until they submit to a regime of unannounced inspections at will.
    "This aggression will not stand, man!"
    Jeff Lebowski

  3. #18
    Regular Countezero's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Dec 09
    Posts
    99
    Country: United States
    Quote Originally Posted by S-2 View Post
    There's no guarantee that an Iranian democracy would see this issue of nuclear weapons any differently. In that respect, a new government that rides the will of the people to power is going to have a nationalist bent regardless.
    I agree. Iranians are very nationalistic, and I think I saw a poll somewhere that showed the nuclear issue was popular. On the other side, it's important to stress that, flawed as it is, Iran already has more of a democracy than most ME countries do. It certainly surpasses the faux democracies in some of our biggest allies.

    Quote Originally Posted by S-2 View Post
    It would be a sustained air campaign carried over a series of raids and, likely, an extended period of time. Key is knocking down the IADS and keeping it down while neutralizing all retaliatory means to the greatest extent possible.
    Okay, that makes more sense. Again, I am out of my element. Not having an Osirak type attack rules Israel out of the game though, doesn't it? I mean, if they can't hit the program in one swoop, then they can't go can they?

    Quote Originally Posted by S-2 View Post
    Once done, game on until they submit to a regime of unannounced inspections at will.
    Why would strikes make the regime any more likely to submit to inspections? I think it strengthens their hand and makes them resist more...

  4. #19
    S2
    S2 is offline

    Military Professional
    Military Professional S2's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 06
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    8,252
    Country: United States

    Countezero Reply

    "Why would strikes make the regime any more likely to submit to inspections?"

    One doesn't enter this decision without agreeing that such an air campaign can't be viewed in any other fashion than as an act of war. Having made that decision, all the targets necessary to suppress their IADS, remove retaliatory capabilities, and strike actual nuclear targets are only the start.

    That target list can and should be expanded into the Iranian nat'l infrastructure. As democratic as they might be, it hasn't helped the west with respect to this issue.

    Ultimately, all governments govern by the consent of their people. To that end, this government IS a reflection of the will of the Iranian people. If so, that public can submit to the inspection regime we specify or face the wrath of war and all that includes.

    What does it include beyond the aforementioned target list when I suggest their nat'l infrastructure? Electrical grids. Water and sewage. Desalinisation plants. Probably everything short of their oil industry ultimately.

    If we do it, there won't be any half-measures to achieve our objectives, IMV, otherwise it's a counter-productive waste that'll leave Iran intact and defiant.
    "This aggression will not stand, man!"
    Jeff Lebowski

  5. #20
    Dirty Kiwi Parihaka's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Posts
    15,723
    Country: New Zealand
    Quote Originally Posted by Countezero View Post
    I am aware of that, which is why I think they want a bomb. I am also aware that Iran views all these attempts as little more than other nations trying to buy off its program. It knows a bomb gets it more toward the hegemonic and regional goals it wants than caving, so it continues. The way to change that thinking is to give them another way to get what they want (or at least one that allows them to think they have gotten it).
    As you said, what they want is nuclear weapons. No amount of either enticements, negotiations nor threats have deterred them from that path.


    Quote Originally Posted by Countezero View Post
    The A-man's rhetoric is just that. He doesn't even control the armed forces or any bomb that gets developed. What he says plays to the street and it plays to all the people who hate the fact that Israel has a bomb.
    I was referring to the offical protests the Iranian theocracy organises on a regular basis calling for the destruction of Israel.
    Quote Originally Posted by Countezero View Post
    I don't really think Iran want to initiate a nuclear attack on Israel, do you? What would it gain? The counterattack would destroy it and destroy any chance it has to achieve aforementioned regional goals.
    This is simply an argument minimising Irans illegal acts. Either international agreements to which Iran is a signatory are valid, or they are not.
    Quote Originally Posted by Countezero View Post
    Consider to that Iran hasn't attacked any nation, militarily, for as long as anyone can remember.
    Consider that they are currently engaged in attacking Israel, Lebannon, Afghanistan and the ISAF.
    Quote Originally Posted by Countezero View Post
    It's a rationale actor, with discernible goals. Even the Revolutionary rhetoric has calmed in recent times, though I still think the country a wretched hive of scum and international banditry.
    No, New Zeland is a rational actor, we grow food and sell it to people.
    Iran is currently calling for the destruction of two seperate countries whilst sponsoring numerous terror groups and developing a clandestine nuclear weapons programme. That isn't rational.


    Quote Originally Posted by Countezero View Post
    That's not entirely true. Iran's position in the world and the restrictions the US and others have placed on it have severely damaged the economy, while at the same time, doing little to hurt the actual regime.
    Wrong.
    Sanctions against Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Quote Originally Posted by Countezero View Post
    It has been unable to update its weapons programs, for example, largely because the US makes it difficult for countries to sell them arms.
    Wrong.
    Iran's Arms Imports
    Quote Originally Posted by Countezero View Post
    Expanded trade with the US and Europe would be one carrot that could be dangled to the Iranians. It certainly would be good for the region (and it would weaken Russia).
    It has been, several times. Just what do you think the EU based negotiations of the last 5 years have been saying?


    Quote Originally Posted by Countezero View Post
    I can't predict the future. Obama could get nothing. Or Obama could go and the two sides could bury the hatchet for the past 30 years of irrational fear and hatred (Heck, even Reagan wanted to talk to the Iranians). The more likely outcome is something in the middle. My point is that talking never hurt (see Detente) and if this is really an urgent matter, ruling out talking seems rather ridiculous. Again, it's not a zero sum gain. If he goes and gets nothing, he can turn it into a win by giving a "Tear down this wall" kind of speech that says the world now knows what the regime wants. That's powerful stuff, if you ask me.

    You still haven't stated what the purpose of such a summit would be?
    Would a goal be to bring Irans nuclear programme under the control of the IAEA?
    How would this summit achieve this when years of high level negotiations (the talking that you seem to have missed) have failed?

  6. #21
    Regular Countezero's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Dec 09
    Posts
    99
    Country: United States
    Quote Originally Posted by S-2 View Post
    One doesn't enter this decision without agreeing that such an air campaign can't be viewed in any other fashion than as an act of war. Having made that decision, all the targets necessary to suppress their IADS, remove retaliatory capabilities, and strike actual nuclear targets are only the start.
    It's an act of war, of course, but I'm in no rush to see a drawn out campaign and I question where the resources would come from.

    Quote Originally Posted by S-2 View Post
    That target list can and should be expanded into the Iranian nat'l infrastructure.
    Why? We're not interested in sapping their ability to produce. We're only interested in their ability to produce nuclear weapons.

    Quote Originally Posted by S-2 View Post
    As democratic as they might be, it hasn't helped the west with respect to this issue.
    It hasn't been given much to work with, either. Right now, the US does not even talk to or acknowledge Iran. Our diplomats cannot not even say hello to theirs in the hallway. We talk to countries like China, and they actually have missiles pointed at us and rob us blind, in espionage terms. So the frost needs to thaw on both sides. Which again, is why I suggested diplomatic moves that hitherto are not even being discussed (because Iran is treated so differently by us).

    Quote Originally Posted by S-2 View Post
    Ultimately, all governments govern by the consent of their people. To that end, this government IS a reflection of the will of the Iranian people. If so, that public can submit to the inspection regime we specify or face the wrath of war and all that includes.
    Do you really think that's an option US policymakers are willing to put on the table? I don't.

    Quote Originally Posted by S-2 View Post
    What does it include beyond the aforementioned target list when I suggest their nat'l infrastructure? Electrical grids. Water and sewage. Desalinisation plants. Probably everything short of their oil industry ultimately.

    If we do it, there won't be any half-measures to achieve our objectives, IMV, otherwise it's a counter-productive waste that'll leave Iran intact and defiant.
    I don't think I could support wrecking Iran for the sake of a anti-proliferation and some suppositions about what they might do if they get a bomb that nobody is even sure they have or will have. Furthermore, that's a total break with past US policy (India, Pakistan, North Korea). I shudder to think the regional consequences of such attacks, too.

  7. #22
    Senior Contributor Bigfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 07
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    5,316
    Country: Australia

    Countezero Reply

    Countezero,

    I have argued long & hard on these boards that bombing Iran would be a disaster & that the assumption that Iran will nuke Israel as soon as it can is wrong. Like you, I believe that Iran wants those weapons primarily to become a regional power & to act as some form of deterrent against outside attack.

    I still believe that we have not yet reached the point where an attack needs to be considered a serious option. The regime is not close enough to having a bomb yet & it may still fall. If it does not, however, and it gets closer to a bomb, I will be leaning increasingly toward the sort of campaign S-2 is talking about.

    Unfortunately the regime seems determined to make itself a target. As pari has pointed out, other nations have made a variety of offers to Iran, none of which have been treated seriously. In fact, the regime has simply continued to up the ante. It has reached the point where even the Russians & the Chinese appear to realize that the potential danger isn't worth any advantage Iranian friendship gives them. Lets hope they continue to withold support until the nuclear program is firmly on a civilian footing.

    To me, the value of the more open policies of the Obama Administration are that they have shown potential US allies in Europe & potential Iranian allies elsewhere how little interest Khamenei & A-jad have in behaving reasonably. Following on from a percieved era of US over-eagerness to resort to force this has made US behaviour a non-issue. Iran has isolated itself. Iran has made itself look every bit the bad guy. This will make future courses of action easier to contemplate.

    Under these circumstances direct talks with Obama aren't even close to a solution. Until the regime in Iran shows a bit of good faith further concessions aren't the answer. Neither, for the time being, are further threats. Let the regime stew in its own juices - it may yet fall.

    I don't know what a new Iran would look like, but I would be surprised if they were any more difficult to deal with. A new government after friends & money might easily be persuaded to quietly shelve an expensive program that serves to isolate Iran. It may not be so desperate to trade prosperity & security for regional power.
    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

  8. #23
    Regular Countezero's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Dec 09
    Posts
    99
    Country: United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Parihaka View Post
    As you said, what they want is nuclear weapons. No amount of either enticements, negotiations nor threats have deterred them from that path.
    Nuclear weapons are a stand in. The important thing is to figure out what they are a stand in for. In other words, why does Iran want nukes. It hasn't always. Why now? And is there anything that we could give them that would satisfy that need so they wouldn't want them?

    I personally think the main reason is for defense purposes. They know once they have the weapons they cannot be invaded. If their relationship with the US was to improve and Iran was sort of ushered back into the world community, they might realize nukes aren't worth the trouble. But, of course, nobody is giving them any hints in that direction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Parihaka View Post
    I was referring to the offical protests the Iranian theocracy organises on a regular basis calling for the destruction of Israel.
    I am aware of those. You see the same thing in Gaza and Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. Iran also calls for the destruction of the US. I am not saying we overlook these, I am just suggesting that we put them in their proper context. Iran's proxy war with Israel stands no chance of wiping it out, and Iran knows this. Its leaders aren't stupid.

    Quote Originally Posted by Parihaka View Post
    This is simply an argument minimising Irans illegal acts. Either international agreements to which Iran is a signatory are valid, or they are not.
    Agreed, but that's a different issue. You dodged the question. Do you think Iran wants the nukes to use them on Israel? Because that supposition is driving a lot of the immediacy that is attached to this debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Parihaka View Post
    Consider that they are currently engaged in attacking Israel, Lebannon, Afghanistan and the ISAF.
    I am well aware of that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Parihaka View Post
    No, New Zeland is a rational actor, we grow food and sell it to people. Iran is currently calling for the destruction of two seperate countries whilst sponsoring numerous terror groups and developing a clandestine nuclear weapons programme. That isn't rational.
    Sure, it is. From the Iranian point of view. Iran plays power politics just like all the other ME countries. Its just more brutal in its rhetoric.

    Quote Originally Posted by Parihaka View Post
    Your links speaks of damage done.

    Quote Originally Posted by Parihaka View Post
    I never said they didn't have a weapons access. I said they had problems and your link speaks to some of those. The Iranian military sucks, by accounts other than my own. It's a hodge-podge of equipment and imports.

    Quote Originally Posted by Parihaka View Post
    It has been, several times. Just what do you think the EU based negotiations of the last 5 years have been saying?
    Not much. The Europeans are rarely on the same page and they hem and haw in all sorts of different directions. Plus, the French and Russians undermine everything the EU tries.

    Quote Originally Posted by Parihaka View Post
    You still haven't stated what the purpose of such a summit would be?
    I've laid out scenarios for you. The nuclear issue would be the primary reason for the summit, but diplomatic recognition (which seems obvious at this late date) and trade can be others. They are all tied together. And as I already stated, the political pressure brought to bear on the regime of Obama standing there with a rhetorical hand out would be immense. And think what the average Iranians would think if an American president came to their country?

    Quote Originally Posted by Parihaka View Post
    How would this summit achieve this when years of high level negotiations (the talking that you seem to have missed) have failed?
    There have been no high significant high level negotiations between the US and Iran for years.

  9. #24
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Jun 07
    Posts
    1,001
    Back to the topic....

    I don't know how reliable these sources are, but if these reports are authentic we might be seeing the begining of an interesting episode in Iran.

    In 24 hours, what has been labeled “street protesting” for new presidential elections has morphed into an earnest and violent revolution to overthrow the Muslim mullahs who rule Iran.

    It is difficult to verify, but factions in the Iranian military may be breaking rank to join the people’s cause. A group calling itself the National Iranian Armed Resistance Forces (NIRU) posted a news release on an Iranian protest website at the end of the day’s violence.


    We, a number of Officers, Soldiers and personnel of the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran, hereby declare our readiness for rise to the armed defense of our nation against the forces of the criminal, illegitimate, transgressing and occupying current Government of Iran, and hereby inform our brothers and sisters serving with the armed security forces of Iran, invite them to join us, request their support and ask them to provide cover for us in this moral & national act. A special request for support & cooperation goes to our brothers of the Military Police.


    The NIRU says it intends to secure Iranian radio and television stations, the Parliament,and the courts, will hold local elections and referendums within 3 months and new presidential elections within 9 months, will dissolve the murderous “Basij” plainclothes police and establish a new national police force.

    Protection and firepower from even a few factions of the military could signal a critical momentum change for the Iranian people, who by law cannot own weapons.

    Complete coverage will be sparse in mainstream media outlets, as western media are not allowed any kind of meaningful access to the country, and their coverage was anemic at best.

    PBS “Frontline” has a Tehran Bureau posting videos, picture and frequent updates, many of which are cell phone images sent via Twitter and immediately posted to Facebook pages and on YouTube. Videos showing protestors burning police cars, attacking police vans and releasing prisoners, breaking up sidewalks and throwing concrete at police are here. They are graphic.

    A young man died from a head wound during a huge crowd rally in Tehran Sunday.

    The bureau reports confrontations all Sunday in the cities of Tehran, Qom, Tabriz in northwest Iran, Isfahan and Najafabad in central Iran and Shiraz in the south:


    Iranian security forces opened fire on protesters during anti-government demonstrations on Sunday, killing at least nine people and arresting more than 300 demonstrators in what marked the largest and most violent anti-government protests in the Islamic Republic since the summer, according to witnesses, opposition websites and state media.

    Thousands of Basij militia forces, police and anti-riot forces armed with guns, batons, pepper gas and tear gas clashed with protesters in squares throughout the Iranian capital. Protestors fought back fiercely, at times tearing out slabs of concrete from city sidewalks and smashing it to hurl stones at security forces, witnesses said.


    One of the dead is reportedly a nephew of Mir Hossein Mousavi, the presidential candidate who is believed by the populace to be the true winner of the June presidential election.

    Amnesty International reported 3 weeks ago that “human rights violations in Iran are now as bad as at any time in the past 20 years.” The agency found Iran has been allowing rape, torture and murder of at least 4,000 jailed demonstrators since last spring. Some citizens were tracked through their computer IP addresses and cell phone numbers and rounded up long after the demonstrations had been brutally quashed by the government.

    The Sunday violence in Iran drew its inspiration from the heavy symbolism of the religious observance of Ashoura, coupled with the one-week anniversary of the death of a Muslim imam who was a harsh critic of the Iranian regime. If the Iranian military will get behind the brave people in the streets, this revolution may have a much better chance for success than it did last spring.

    In the meantime, the President of the United States is golfing and goofing in Hawaii, much too busy to give news conferences to address terrorism on American jets or Iranians murdered by their own police as they fight for democracy.

    The London Telegraph wrote Sunday evening: “Iranians are dying for Freedom—Where is Barack Obama?”
    Link

  10. #25
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Jun 07
    Posts
    1,001

    Mayhem in Iran

    It seems it is all chaos in Iran.



    More graphic clips here

  11. #26
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Jun 07
    Posts
    1,001
    The London Telegraph wrote Sunday evening: “Iranians are dying for Freedom—Where is Barack Obama?”
    'Playing golf, .... ... ... with friends')

  12. #27
    Global Moderator Defense Professional JAD_333's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 07
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    6,876
    Country: United States
    Quote Originally Posted by S-2 View Post
    "And I'm not convinced an air-strike would work..."

    It would be a sustained air campaign carried over a series of raids and, likely, an extended period of time. Key is knocking down the IADS and keeping it down while neutralizing all retaliatory means to the greatest extent possible.

    Once done, game on until they submit to a regime of unannounced inspections at will.
    S2:

    Quite apart from the success or failure a of preemptive attack by Israel on Iran, I worry that any attack will lead to a conflagration between the Muslim and non-Mulsim world.
    To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

  13. #28
    Senior Contributor Bigfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 07
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    5,316
    Country: Australia
    The London Telegraph wrote Sunday evening: “Iranians are dying for Freedom—Where is Barack Obama?”
    Quote Originally Posted by Zinja View Post
    'Playing golf, .... ... ... with friends')
    Doing what any US President with a brain should do - back the protesters rhetorically & keep any other visible hint of US involvement out of the picture. Any credible hint of US involvement here & the protest movement is dealt a severe, perhaps mortal blow.

    As in the election, this must be about Iran & Iranians. Obama did the smart thing then & the movement has survived & perhaps even thrived. I'm yet to see any credible suggestions as to what else Obama should be doing, just cheap shots about what he is doing Using this for partisan point scoring won't help anyone, least of all Iranians.

    Obama, West stand behind Iran protesters

    December 29, 2009 - 9:04AM

    AFP

    US President Barack Obama has demanded Iran free protesters and he has told the opposition that history is on its side as he led Western nations in denouncing the Islamic regime's deadly crackdown.

    "The United States joins with the international community in strongly condemning the violent and unjust suppression of innocent Iranian citizens," Obama said in Hawaii where he is on vacation.

    "We call for the immediate release of all who have been unjustly detained within Iran," Obama said.

    The president promised to stand behind Iranians during the "extraordinary events," saying that he was "confident that history will be on the side of those who seek justice".

    "The decision of Iran's leaders to govern through fear and tyranny will not continue," he said. "It's telling when governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation."

    At least eight people were killed as security forces used tear gas, batons and eventually live rounds to push back thousands who had taken to the street, according to opposition websites. Authorities were also said to have detained more than a dozen dissidents.

    Obama has walked a fine line with Iran by seeking dialogue with the Islamic regime on its controversial nuclear program, leading his critics to urge him to take a more robust approach.

    "Violence in Iran continues... Where is the administration?" Republican Senator John McCain, Obama's rival in last year's presidential election, wrote on Twitter. "We must stand up for the Iranian people."

    Obama in his address stressed that the violence in Iran was "not about the United States", which is vilified by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other conservative elements.

    "It's about the Iranian people and their aspirations for justice and a better life for themselves," he said.

    Obama and British Foreign Secretary David Miliband both noted that Iranian forces resorted to force on Ashura, a sacred day for Shi'ite Muslims which marks the martyrdom of seventh-century Imam Hussein.

    "It is therefore particularly disturbing to hear accounts of the lack of restraint by the security forces," Miliband said in London.

    Miliband called on Iran to respect the rights of its citizens, a demand echoed by the European Union.

    "Brutal force against, and the arbitrary detentions of demonstrators constitute gross violations of these basic human rights," the EU presidency said in a statement from Stockholm.

    German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the right to free expression through peaceful demonstrations "must not be restricted or suppressed by violence.

    "I condemn the recent violent clashes in Iran in which people died due to the unacceptable actions of the security forces," she said.

    France warned Tehran its actions would "lead nowhere" and urged a negotiated political settlement.

    "At a time when the death toll is rising, France again expresses its deep concern and condemns the arbitrary arrests and violence carried out against ordinary protesters," foreign ministry spokesman Bernard Valero said.

    French relations with Iran have been hit by the trial of 24-year-old teacher Clotilde Reiss, who is accused of having supported the June opposition protests against Ahmadinejad's disputed re-election.

    Russia, which has the strongest ties with Iran of any major power, raised its concerns in a more mildly worded statement, calling for restraint.

    "We are worried about the events that have taken place in Iran in recent days," the foreign ministry said.

    "In our opinion, the main thing in this situation is to show restraint, look for and find compromises on the basis of law, undertake political efforts to prevent further escalation of the internal confrontation."

    © 2009 AFP
    Obama, West stand behind Iran protesters
    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

  14. #29
    Senior Contributor Bigfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 07
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    5,316
    Country: Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by JAD_333 View Post
    S2:

    Quite apart from the success or failure a of preemptive attack by Israel on Iran, I worry that any attack will lead to a conflagration between the Muslim and non-Mulsim world.
    There is a part of me that wonders if some of the more unhinged members of the government on Iran might actually want this. It was certainly what OBL was after with 9/11 (well, one of the things).
    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

  15. #30
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    21,433
    Country: Canada
    For you defenders of Iran, FIND ME ONE MILITARY REASON FOR IRAN TO GET NUKES!
    Chimo

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 15 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. US exports to Iran increase in Bush years
    By troung in forum International Economy
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12 Jul 08,, 20:34
  2. Stopping Iran:Why the Case For Military Action Still Stands
    By urmomma158 in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11 May 08,, 02:58
  3. When Is Islamic Terrorism Actually "Anti-Islamic Activity"?
    By dalem in forum International Economy
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 30 Jan 08,, 08:45
  4. Candidates, How would you grapple with Iran's nuclear drive?
    By FibrillatorD in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 16 Aug 07,, 17:11
  5. A Preemptive Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facilities: Possible Consequences
    By lulldapull in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 20 Nov 04,, 21:27

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts