Getting China to Sanction Iran

**Officer of Engineers** · 03 Jul 12,, 16:44

The first two years of that war was fought in Iran. The next 6 years in Iraq.

**Aryajet** · 20 Jul 12,, 17:54

Originally Posted by DOR

Let’s try that again.

“I can't understand the hysteria” . . . nothing about not believing it to be true.

But, this level of concern over a country that really hasn’t been all that war-like in a few hundred years is odd. North Korea, on the other hand, deserves all the concern, hand wringing, sanctions and diplomatic effort we can convince any nation to exercise. But, why is Iran in the same camp?

If (as OoE points out) using proxies is the key issue, then there are plenty of others who should be on the list. By the way, I recognize the concern about handing operating nukes to terrorists, but this hasn’t happened with North Korea, Pakistan, India or the other supposed underground nuclear powers, past or present.

Your statement can be applied to the first 170 years but the last 30 years are totally different.

Below in an excerpt form one of the latest speeches delivered by IRI supreme leader Ali Khamenei in public domain. Please read and kindly share your interpretation if you would.

“From now onward, we will support and help any nations, any groups fighting against the Zionist regime across the world, and we are not afraid of declaring this, The Zionist regime is a true cancer tumor on this region that should be cut off, and it definitely will be cut off.”

You can read the rest HERE

**DOR** · 21 Jul 12,, 14:21

Aryajet,

What political leaders say, and what they do, are only loosely related. That's why my comments are entirely about provable, direct actions of the nationstate. Yes, it is a limited universe.

**Deltacamelately** · 24 Jul 12,, 14:00

Originally Posted by DOR

Aryajet,

What political leaders say, and what they do, are only loosely related. That's why my comments are entirely about provable, direct actions of the nationstate. Yes, it is a limited universe.

DOR,

The person you just addressed is of Iranian descent. I believe he is better positioned his politicos intent vs comments.

**Officer of Engineers** · 24 Jul 12,, 14:29

And a veteran of the Iran-Iraq War. Has anyone any clue what it takes to turn a combat veteran against his own government?

**DOR** · 26 Jul 12,, 14:18

Originally Posted by Deltacamelately

DOR,

The person you just addressed is of Iranian descent. I believe he is better positioned his politicos intent vs comments.

Sorry to disappoint you, but as a non-racist I find someone's random genetic makeup a useless bit of trivia in a discussion such as this.

Education? Experience? Professional qualification? Real-world personal interaction? Those Features are important; mere DNA has no place in this discussion.

**Officer of Engineers** · 26 Jul 12,, 14:36

You're avoiding the issue. Aryajet has judged his former leaders to be unworthy of his trust and loyalty.

**Mihais** · 26 Jul 12,, 15:41

Originally Posted by DOR

Sorry to disappoint you, but as a non-racist I find someone's random genetic makeup a useless bit of trivia in a discussion such as this.

Education? Experience? Professional qualification? Real-world personal interaction? Those Features are important; mere DNA has no place in this discussion.

A.Genetic makeup is not really random,since patterns exist.Among many sorts of patterns,it can be determined if someone is from Iranian descent or another.You are both wrong and using strawmen,completely needlessly,since the Major attacked you in no way.
B.The man in question does posses all the atributes you consider so precious(thanks in no small part to his DNA

)
C.Whether said experiences can be valued is up to everyone.But they exist.

**Deltacamelately** · 27 Jul 12,, 08:18

Originally Posted by DOR

Sorry to disappoint you, but as a non-racist I find someone's random genetic makeup a useless bit of trivia in a discussion such as this.

Education? Experience? Professional qualification? Real-world personal interaction? Those Features are important; mere DNA has no place in this discussion.

You better be checking his last few hundred posts to fully appreciate his take on Iranian policy making. The "Iranian Descent" part was an allusion.

**DOR** · 28 Jul 12,, 20:42

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

You're avoiding the issue. Aryajet has judged his former leaders to be unworthy of his trust and loyalty.

Nah, I'm just asking for qualifications and relevence. There's plenty of folks here who bad-mouth their current and former national leaders, so that's no big deal.

**DOR** · 28 Jul 12,, 20:45

Originally Posted by Mihais

A.Genetic makeup is not really random,since patterns exist.Among many sorts of patterns,it can be determined if someone is from Iranian descent or another.You are both wrong and using strawmen,completely needlessly,since the Major attacked you in no way.
B.The man in question does posses all the atributes you consider so precious(thanks in no small part to his DNA

)
C.Whether said experiences can be valued is up to everyone.But they exist.

Accepted, and apologies all around.

In my defense, your honor, I would merely point out that there was no evidence whatsoever of expertise; adequate historical record on which to make a gross generalization; and sufficient red herrings (in the form of national identity) to justify the comments made at the time.

In the interest of an out-of-court settlement, I withdraw my comment.

**Officer of Engineers** · 30 Jul 12,, 23:09

Where's the obligatory round of scotch?

**Double Edge** · 31 Jul 12,, 01:11

Originally Posted by Deltacamelately

The person you just addressed is of Iranian descent. I believe he is better positioned his politicos intent vs comments.

Then it just requires another Iranian with an opposing view to counter.

Iran Affairs

That blogger's done a decent job over the years countering the conventional narrative

Originally Posted by DOR

“I can't understand the hysteria” . . . nothing about not believing it to be true.

Simple, start with the premise and an ironclad conviction that Iran WILL develop a bomb. The rest follows from there.

Challenge that premise and we get closer to reality on the ground ie a stalemate.

**DOR** · 31 Jul 12,, 02:35

Originally Posted by Double Edge

Simple, start with the premise and an ironclad conviction that Iran WILL develop a bomb. The rest follows from there.

Premise accepted.

Assume a bomb; what next?

1) Iran uses the bomb on Israel
1a) The US retaliates against Iran. This is a worst-case scenario that Iran cannot wish to occur.
1b) The US does not retaliate, and no one else does either. For Iran, this is a best-case scenario.

2) Iran gives the bomb to another terrorist group, which uses it against Israel.
2a) The US retaliates against Iran. This is a worst-case scenario that Iran cannot wish to occur.
2b) The US does not retaliate, and no one else does either. For Iran, this is a best-case scenario, and highly unlikely.

3) Iran does not use the bomb, nor give it away, but retains it as a defense against Israeli or US attack.
3a) Israel finds it useful to seek out ways to lower tensions. This is another best-case scenario.
3b) Israel does not seek to lower tensions, but simply lives with the status quo.

1) would be unprecedented. No nuclear power has used such weapons since 1945, and there is no hard evidence to suggest that Iran desires to be the first. To assume such a desire requires the assertion that the Iranian leadership is less logical, less sensible and less predictable than that of North Korea. I reject those assumptions.

2) is equally unprecedented. No nation has willingly handed over weapons to non-state actors, and there is no hard evidence to suggest that Iran desires to be the first. Under such a scenario, Iran retains all the disadvantages of being responsible for an attack that would be globally condemned, while giving up any degree of control over when, where or under what circumstances such an attack would occur. Again, to assume such a desire requires the assertion that the Iranian leadership is less logical, less sensible and less predictable than that of North Korea. I reject those assumptions.

3) is the long-established status quo. Nuclear weapons cannot usefully be used, only held as a source of mutually assured destruction (MAD).

This is not meant to be a full analysis, just a kick-start to the next phase of discussion.

**Double Edge** · 31 Jul 12,, 03:09

Originally Posted by DOR

Premise accepted

Assume a bomb; what next?

Iran gets attacked. End of story.

What's missing upto now is the bomb.

All the rhetoric to date is how Iran is getting inexorably closer and something must be done. That is the long & short of it.

Originally Posted by DOR

This is a worst-case scenario that Iran cannot wish to occur.

Exactly, this is why i believe Iran isn't going to go for a bomb. Forget about using it on Israel or giving it to terrorists. Iran will not be allowed to possess one.

Iran wants an equitable deal that allows them domestic enrichment. Work that out and the story is over.