Leader

Do you remember '91? Saddam's army was organized and willing and able to fight. Then after a month of arail bombardment, they were like butter.

__________________

lemontree

These bravado statements were made by the Iraqis too before GW1. What hit them was "shock n awe". Infact the who world was in "shock n awe" by the air blitz unleashed on the Iraqis.

__________________

Cheers!...on the rocks!!

lemontree

Leader,
The Iranians have not attacked any country in their neighbourhood. Yes the Iranians have assisted the Palestinian guerillas, but that was in response to the animosity faced by them from the US after the revolution in 1979.
Besides they see the examples infront of them, see it from their eyes, North Korea has nukes (from assistance by the "ally on WOT"), and the US does not attack them, Iraq had no nukes so they have been decimated and occupied. Pakistan has been the nucleus of the 9/11 attacks and they get pampered as they have the nukes which they might give to the terrorists if the US takes its revenge on them.
It is fear of the US that drives them to the nukes. Similar to the Indian test of 1974, India raced for a nuclear weapon because Nixon had threatened to use nukes to help Pakistan in Bangladesh (then East-Pakistan).

Shek

Geography and history should not be forgotten.

North Korea is on the doorstep of China, and the last time we were in North Korea, the Chinese got involved. While China is not as powerful as the US, it's not smart to antagonize China and give a reason for our relations to deteriorate.

As far as Pakistan goes, they are also on the doorstep of China, and having been our ally for decades, it's a tough position to jettison your ally.

Iran can try to read into the North Korea and Pakistan scenarios, but the variables are not all the same, and that will be their mistake if they choose to be defiant about the process. I'll admit that I haven't followed this situation with a microscope day to day, but I believe that they hands down turned down the proposal from Russia that would have provided them with all the fuel rods necessary to run their "peaceful" nuclear reactors (someone please correct me if I'm wrong). If their intentions were solely for power, then that should have been a proposal that merited serious attention.

Finally, how does supporting Palestinian terrorists compensate for the hostile US-Iran relations following the second revolution? I'm thinking that it had more to do with trying to become a power player in their region rather than as a proxy competition with the US by attacking Israel and some soft US targets in Europe.

Lunatock

Putin, Schroeder, and Chirac oppose the serving of butter cookies in the UN...

667medic

Sir, can you please provide a link....

Leader

Animosity? What do you think caused that? Maybe the state sponsored terrorist attack on our embassy? Also “getting back at the US” isn’t even close to the main reason Iran has been engaged is a terrorist war on Israel.

Seeing it through the eyes of power obsessed dictators is not a good way to see reality.

Yet. And where is Iran's China or massive army or fully industrialized neighbor that would be significantly damaged in such a war? The reason why we haven’t ended the North Korean regime, or the Iranian Mullahcracy for that matter, has less to do will the presence of nuclear weapons and more to do with there still being peaceful options on the table.

What makes you think Iran will get a workable nuke before that happens to them?

I don't agree.

First, the US doesn’t go around the world looking for “revenge.” Second, if we did take "revenge" on Pak, they wouldn't be giving nukes to anyone.

There are other motives as well. Including becoming a bigger regional power. They need to be convinced that continuing to pursue nuclear weapons will lead to the Mullahcracy losing it's power regardless of weather they get there.

lemontree

Shek,
You are right about that post but the point is that it is out of fear of the US that they are going nuclear.

lemontree

I am not justifying anything, just finding a reason as to why they are going nuclear. The US embassy attack is obliously the prime reason for the US animosity. The Iranian mullah leaders thought that the US was planing a coup with the Shah as it did in 1953.
The lack of resources and capability. Iraq and Afghanistan are still unstable for the US to divert attention from them.
Why does the ISI chief ask a mafia don (Mohd Ansari - sentenced to death in the American center attack in Calcutta) to transfere USD 100K to Mohad Atta (telecom intercept)?It is up to you to believe or not the evidence that has been collected by your own and other agencies. It does not change facts.
The US revenge is justified after 9/11.
Maybe that is why the Taliban is still getting supplies and is flourishing.
That is correct. Iran does desire to be a regional power, with the exit of Iraq as a threat.

Leader

"The Iranians have not attacked any country in their neighbourhood. Yes the Iranians have assisted the Palestinian guerillas, but that was in response to the animosity faced by them from the US after the revolution in 1979."

It seems like you're trying to justify what they are doing to me, but maybe not.

Not necessarily. It would cause problems for us but we can act if our hand is forced. In addition, Iran is years away from having a workable weapon.

I tend to believe that Afghanistan was the center of Al Qaeda given that was OBL's base and the overt support of the Afghan government. I'm not saying Pak had no involvement.

Yes and no. The US is certainly justified in killing the terrorists on the basis of revenge, but innocent people are going to die too. So there must be a continuing threat, which there is, in order to justify a war.

I strongly disagree with that assessment. In addition, we have limitations on what kind of tactics we can use in Afghanistan. A war with Pak would likely be rather different because they possess a significant amount of nuclear weapons. Therefore, the only reasonable tactic is to wipe the country from the face of the earth in order to prevent retaliation. You don't doubt we could do that, do you?

lemontree

I am not saying that the US threat forced India to go nuclear. India's primary concern was PRCs' nuclear threat, but the 1971 war speed up that programme.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/xi/45650.htm
http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1724/17240720.htm
http://www.ciaonet.org/olj/sa/sa_99kap03.html

lemontree

Here is an article that gives some insight into the history of Iranian nuclear programme.
IRANIAN NUCLEAR WEAPONS POLICY: PAST, PRESENT AND POSSIBLE FUTURE

Garry

I would say that it is Russia now to decide on whether US would attack Iran on not. If it supports Iran with arms deliveries US and makes sure that they would support Iran in case of war US will back off.... one thing to attack Iraq which had no support another thing attacking small Vietnam which is supplied by USSR...

In both cases in 1991 and in 2003 Russian did nothing to support Iraq (and that was right). Moreover Russia helped US by providing a lot of data on Iraqi systems build by Soviets. In 2003 Russia stayed aside while US attacked Iraq.

Now Russia should decide

1) take commitment to support Iran like it did with Vietnam,

2) or stay aside limiting its position with just statements....

In first scheario if Russia supplies Iran with SAMs, Aircraft, Tackticle missiles and etc. and makes it obvious that it will support Iran in case of war, Bush administration will have hard time statring anotehr "unilatteral" campaign....

However for Russia it is not clear what benefits would it get if it supports Iran....

Russia does not want Iran to become nuclear neighbour....
Russia and Iran have several conflicts over the status of Caspian Sea oil resources
Russia and Iran have different views on how Central Asia should go in future...
Selling arms to a country with which you have so many unresolved issues makes it too strong for favorable discussion in future....
Opposing US might have an economic cost - WTO will be postponed for long period. Some cooepration projects would be cancelled...

On the other side Russia clearly does not want US to go with another "unilatteral" initiative with its direct neighbour....

Nobody wants war at your border (the border in the sea)
The war will take our your important business partner
If you don't demostrate to US that there is a limit to their unilateral ideas tomorrow they would come with some ideas inside Russia.... guys like Leader and Sniper will easily go that far until somebody gives them a good kick like in Vietnam....

I think that Russia has tough task of trying to curb Iranian nuclear abminitions on one side and preventing US from "unilaterral" actions...... Russia should do some controversion things:
- sell some arms to Iran to make it a bit stronger but not strong enough to be completelly arrogant..... this will prevent US from immidiate actions
- threaten mullahs that it will give up support if Iran does not agree to give up its right to enrich unranium.....


ps. Supporting guerillas is a part of international policy.... US has supported many guerilla wars and coups around the globe.... should we call this terrorism?!?!? for those who will ask for specific examples:

at differet times - Nikoragua, Cuba, Guatemala, Bolivia, Chilie, Panama, Venezuella, Laos, Afghanistan..... add others yourself.

lemontree

I also wanted to gather any other reasons from the US prespective on the animosity towards Iran (i.e apart from the hostage issue).
We said the same for N Korea.
Undoubtedly.
No doubts on the capability.

Garry

I guess that Russia did not decide yet. The recent statement is that it will not let others buy its sielence cheap. Russia still does not want Iran to have a bomb, but hates the idea that US solves the Iran issue and confirms its status of the only superpower which polices the world.....

From what I heard I can expect that Russia will sell them antitank missiles, combat helicopters (probably Kamov) and some SAMs. Those SAMs would be either new S-300PMU or old..... S-200 from Russian army reserve. In addition to that they will get few hundred BMP-3 and T-80 tanks, MLRS - Smerch. However they will not get any strikking weapons - aircrafts and tactical missiles.

The reason for the arms sale would be
1) prevent US and NATO from suduction of cheap & easy war with Iran.....
2) bring cash to troubled millitary industry
3) use deliveries as a leverage to influence Iran and its oil policy..... Putin wants to direct Iran deliveries to India rather than to mediterranean direction, thus reducing competition on mediterranean direction

However Russia will be also claiming that Iran gives up bomb. Russians want US and Europeans efforts collapse and then join them and be a decisive power which will resolute the issue (and earned cash from the crisis).