Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Iran, Nukes, War Casualties and Assorted Accusations

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    RoccoR Reply

    "(Note: I did not say this. This is not from my posting. RRR)"

    Indeed you did not. It's only fair for me to acknowledge. OTOH, you've made very similar comments to me in the past, however, regarding Iraq's proclivities towards violence. No "...dogs of war...", however. Sheer dramatic license on my part.

    "I am completely aware that you and people that agree with your argument, like to use that decade old intelligence on how Chemical Weapons were used..."

    It is a fact regarding the use of such. However old is irrelevant. CW weapons were again used against the shias in the months immediately following DESERT STORM.

    "...I know that most of the IA's are fully aware that the now famous Halabja (in Iraqi Kurdistan, circa 1988) incident was information that was more than a decade old when it was used as justification in 2002..."

    What IS relevant is that same leadership council prevailed inside Iraq in February 2003. THAT, sir, is the continuing thread from 1988 to 2003 that bears relevance but remains unacknowledged by those who'd prefer to see Halabja and the Iran war as some sort of "one-off" aberration of an otherwise rational Iraqi leadership.

    "...What they don't say is that, the US did nothing because Saddam was a US ally at the time..."

    Silly. Were they to do so then they'd (by inference also myself) would be lying. Iraq wasn't an ally of America.

    The March 16, 1988 attack on Halabja occurred in the midst of a cold war. Iraq was most certainly an ally... of our enemy- the Soviet Union. It is the Soviet Union, afterall, who provided Iraq with the integrated air defense network dismantled three years later by the coalition forces during Desert Storm. Those Republican Guard T-72s and BMPs didn't come from any NATO arsenal. Neither did those MiG-29 Fulcrums flown to the land of their erstwhile enemy, Iran.

    "...I've spent too much time in the Region to trust any of of the players..."

    Then a sage, wily and wizened observer such as yourself should know better. It remains more than a little presumptuous to automatically conclude Iraq had been America's busom buddy by virtue of its war upon Iran. Not so. Certainly the crew of the U.S.S. Stark, almost EXACTLY one year prior to Halabja, carried no such illusions.

    "...I do know what the IC (Director David Kay, Iraq Survey Group) said on the matter. It is a matter of record. I am also aware of what LTG Odom said on the matter..."

    As I'm aware of the words of Charles Duelfer in his transmittal message introducing the DCI Special Advisor's Report On Iraq's WMD-

    "...From the evidence available through the actions and statements of a range of Iraqis, it seems clear that the guiding theme for WMD was to sustain the intellectual capacity achieved over so many years at such a great cost and to be in a position to produce again with as short a lead time as possible—within the vital constraint that no action should threaten the prime objective of ending international sanctions and constraints.

    Saddam continued to see the utility of WMD. He explained that he purposely gave an ambiguous impression about possession as a deterrent to Iran. He gave explicit direction to maintain the intellectual capabilities. As UN sanctions eroded there was a concomitant expansion of activities that could support full WMD reactivation. He directed that ballistic missile work continue that would support long-range missile development. Virtually no senior Iraq; believed that Saddam had forsaken WMD forever. Evidence suggests that, as resources became available and the constraints of sanctions decayed, there was a direct expansion of activity that would have the effect of supporting future WMD reconstitution..."


    Instead of counting heads, you settled for counting warheads.

    Comprehensive Report Of The Special Advisor To The DCI On Iraq's WMD-September 2004

    DESERT STORM concluded in late March 1991. We didn't invade until late February 2003. Twelve years. I find the report very worthy reading and a clear reminder of a practiced Iraqi apparatus of deceit against which we ineffectually wallowed. I rue walking this ground again. OTOH, I fully appreciate the gravity of the threat posed by Iran accomplishing that which eluded Iraq.

    You should too.
    Last edited by S2; 31 Jan 12,, 06:37.
    "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
    "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

    Comment


    • #62
      RoccoR,

      You think Iran is bargaining? I'd say they are playing poker and bluffing big time. The way they are playing their next bet will be "all in".

      Then what?

      With the losses they suffer from the sanctions they could have bought several TN electrical plants, plus a dozen rafineries for their oil and finished medical program. After all, this is what they publicly say they want.

      Hoping to be a hegemon in the Gulf is like me hoping to buy a new Ferrari Enzo.
      No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

      To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

      Comment


      • #63
        Doktor Reply

        "I'd say they are playing poker and bluffing big time. The way they are playing their next bet will be "all in".

        Then what?"

        Not fair! I already said they were holding a pair of deuces.:Dancing-Banana:

        "...Hoping to be a hegemon in the Gulf is like me hoping to buy a new Ferrari Enzo."

        I like your odds. We'll chill. Bomb over to Milan. Rock out. Chase chicks.

        Chicks will chase US!!!

        It's all good...
        Last edited by S2; 01 Feb 12,, 04:51.
        "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
        "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by RoccoR View Post


          How can that be, there are Five nuclear-weapon states under the NPT?
          As I'm sure you are aware, context is everything and we are discussing the development of nuclear capabilities outside or in contravention of the NPT. If however you wish to continue requiring the obvious to be stated, I'm happy to respond in kind.


          I think I said "The Rule of Law;" and not a law.
          What you said was "What makes America different is our stead-fast belief in "The Rule of Law." I follow that belief." For both America and yourself to be proven different than the rest of us, it would really help if you defined which law or set of laws provide the rule which define your nations and your personal exceptionalism.

          [*]Bullet #4 I've discussed this. It is the only bullet point really worth mentioning. This refers to the computer modeling, implosion simulations and the R&D into the detonation devices. CLEARLY, this is suspicious activity. But it is in the R&D realm. It bares further evaluation and explanation.
          Activity specific to the development of nuclear weapons, yes. Directly contrary to Irans obligations under the NPT.



          In "The Rule of Law," there is the requirement for competency.
          There it is again. I really would prefer that you at least define which or what part of 'the rule of law' you are referring to, specifically how this concept is applicable to the subject material.



          Why - YES.
          Good, then why do you insist any punitive measures against Iraqs use of WMD had to be immediate?
          In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

          Leibniz

          Comment


          • #65
            Parihaka, et al,


            I do apologize. It seems I misread part of the exchange and inferred something that was not implied.
            Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
            As I'm sure you are aware, context is everything and we are discussing the development of nuclear capabilities outside or in contravention of the NPT. If however you wish to continue requiring the obvious to be stated, I'm happy to respond in kind.
            (COMMENT)

            My mistake.

            I see that you are referring to Executive Orders 13094 and the more inclusive EO 13382 (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/135435.pdf )the Iran Sanctions | D.P.R.K. Sanctions | Syria Sanctions | A.Q. Khan Sanctions.
            • Iran
            • North Korea
            • Syria
            • Pakistan


            Lybia, which would have made Number Five was stricken from the list. The Iran-Syria-North Korea Non-Proliferation Act further eliminates Pakistan for reasons which open an entirely different can of worms. That is now down to three.
            • Iran (Additional Protocols not in force.)
            • North Korea (An Agreed Framework state, beyond the NPT.)
              On January 10, 2003, North Korea withdrew from the NPT and Safeguards Agreement are no longer binding.
            • Syria (NPT in force. Problems!)

            Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
            What you said was "What makes America different is our stead-fast belief in "The Rule of Law." I follow that belief." For both America and yourself to be proven different than the rest of us, it would really help if you defined which law or set of laws provide the rule which define your nations and your personal exceptionalism.
            (COMMENT)

            That is a tall order. I will have to defer you to a couple of sources:


            Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
            Activity specific to the development of nuclear weapons, yes. Directly contrary to Irans obligations under the NPT.
            (COMMENT)

            Remember the NPT is voluntary. Iran can withdraw from it at any time. I have noticed that many people believe the NPT is an absolute. It is not by any means.
            Originally posted by Para 1, Article X, NPT
            Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other Parties to the Treaty and to the United Nations Security Council three months in advance. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.

            Like I said in several previous posting, Iran is a sovereign nation.
            Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
            There it is again. I really would prefer that you at least define which or what part of 'the rule of law' you are referring to, specifically how this concept is applicable to the subject material.
            (COMMENT)

            I've used it in two context:

            No written law may be enforced unless it conforms with certain unwritten, universal principles of fairness, morality, and justice that transcend human legal systems.

            The RoL requires the exercise of power in accordance with well-established and clearly written rules, regulations, and legal principles. A distinction is sometimes drawn between power, will, and force, on the one hand, and law, on the other.


            There are a couple of links I've suggest, supra. But in general, I've used the RoL principles in these two context.
            Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
            Good, then why do you insist any punitive measures against Iraqs use of WMD had to be immediate?
            (COMMENT)

            Again, this is a time and blackmail issue. It is not good diplomacy to indefinitely hold previous indiscretions over the head of a nation, under threat of war and invasion. Second, the US is not the "World Police." It is not even a signatory (withdrawn) of the Rome Status of the International Criminal Court where Human Rights and War Crimes are defined. How does the US even have standing?

            This is simply another discussion, probably not of interest to the members.

            Most Respectfully,
            R

            Comment


            • #66
              Doktor, et al,

              Yes, interesting analogy.
              Originally posted by Doktor View Post
              You think Iran is bargaining? I'd say they are playing poker and bluffing big time. The way they are playing their next bet will be "all in".

              Then what?
              (COMMENT)

              No one of the parties wants to go to war over this issue. Iran has several big chips (or cards if you will) to play at the barganing table.

              What is "all-in" really mean. Suppose that Iran chooses to withdraw from the NPT. What standing does the US or the UN have? Nothing is then binding on it.
              Originally posted by Doktor View Post
              With the losses they suffer from the sanctions they could have bought several TN electrical plants, plus a dozen rafineries for their oil and finished medical program. After all, this is what they publicly say they want.

              Hoping to be a hegemon in the Gulf is like me hoping to buy a new Ferrari Enzo.
              (COMMENT)

              The sanctions "may" not have the impact that the US desires.
              Originally posted by AP Business Writer
              India has joined China in saying it will not cut back on oil imports from Iran, despite stiff new U.S. and European sanctions designed to pressure Tehran over its nuclear program.

              SOURCE:
              India defies sanctions, won't cut Iran oil imports
              By Erika Kinetz
              AP Business Writer / January 31, 2012
              India defies sanctions, won't cut Iran oil imports - Boston.com

              The two largest emerging markets on the planet; China and India. And they can hold-off the sanctions.

              A true Super Power has both military and economic strength that it uses to be persuasive in the world. The US, because it has consistently lost tax revenue from an eroding middle class economy, can no longer exercise that measure of strength is had, prior to the Afghanistan and Iraq ventures. It will not be able to maintain its standing force or replenish loses. It has an ever dwindling industrial capacity.

              No, Iran has a few cards to play yet. It is by no means a "slam dunk." It may not have the military force to achieve its ends like the US has had in the past, but it has oil. And with the backing of India and China, it can holds it breath longer than the US.

              Most Respectfully,
              R

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by RoccoR View Post
                Doktor, et al,

                Yes, interesting analogy.
                (COMMENT)

                No one of the parties wants to go to war over this issue.
                Over what issue? On the one side you have P5 holding NPT dear (as the only way to prevent worldwide nuclear arms race) + Israel who will have to learn to live with nuclear neighbor (who more then once said Israel should be erased off the map), on the other side is Iran, more isolated with each day.

                Iran has several big chips (or cards if you will) to play at the barganing table.
                In my view the one with better cards is the USA and her allies. They are the biggest shareholders of the casino, after all, and the house never losses ;)

                What is "all-in" really mean. Suppose that Iran chooses to withdraw from the NPT. What standing does the US or the UN have? Nothing is then binding on it.
                I really don't know, you tell me.
                (COMMENT)

                The sanctions "may" not have the impact that the US desires.
                Iranian currency devalues, the buyers for Iranian products are blocked and will find new suppliers, the regime can travel to 10 destinations outside Iran, in a while they wont be of any significance as a partner to anyone. Hardly the sanctions are not working.

                The two largest emerging markets on the planet; China and India. And they can hold-off the sanctions.
                They can while they have interest in doing it. At the moment, being one of the few buyers of Iranian oil, they are in a position to dictate the price of that oil. With no legal ways for paying it, they will make barter arrangements selling/building something to Iran, lowering the price of that oil even more.

                We wont see lot of planes full with cash or gold with fly to Tehran each week.

                A true Super Power has both military and economic strength that it uses to be persuasive in the world. The US, because it has consistently lost tax revenue from an eroding middle class economy, can no longer exercise that measure of strength is had, prior to the Afghanistan and Iraq ventures. It will not be able to maintain its standing force or replenish loses. It has an ever dwindling industrial capacity.
                Yet they are still #1 economy in the world and biggest market for Chinese products. China will lose more if that market closes.

                No, Iran has a few cards to play yet. It is by no means a "slam dunk." It may not have the military force to achieve its ends like the US has had in the past, but it has oil. And with the backing of India and China, it can holds it breath longer than the US.

                Most Respectfully,
                R
                We live in interesting times, I just hope it wont get too interesting
                No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by S2 View Post
                  Double speak from Double Edge?
                  Don't know how to do doublespeak S-2, do not like double speak, prefer to be straight to the point :)

                  Originally posted by S2 View Post
                  "Not sure if damning is the right term. Maybe casting aspersions, raising suspicions or insinuating.

                  Before, you had suspicions, after the nov IAEA report you have some substance to back up those suspicions..."


                  Please consider CAREFULLY what you have written. Yes, we had serious suspicions prior to November 2011.
                  I have

                  Originally posted by S2 View Post
                  The information since gathered for this report is credible in the eyes of the IAEA. That information for this report indicates hidden pathways towards enrichment; efforts by MILITARY personnel and their organizations to acquire nuclear-related equipment and components; design work on an indigenously-developed nuclear weapon design-to include components testing; and the acquisition of nuclear weapons design information from a clandestine network of suppliers.
                  Agree

                  Originally posted by S2 View Post
                  "...Very subtle..."

                  Oh bullshit. There's nothing about "hidden" and "clandestine" suggesting subtlety to the IAEA's indictment. It's forthright and DAMNING.

                  ...Maybe the current meeting of the IAEA officials in Iran might clarify more."

                  :bang:
                  A smoking gun would be damning. There isn't one yet. Something we already agreed to when the IAEA report came out in Nov.

                  I refer you to my previous post to what the IAEA chief himself said.

                  Interview: Focus of Iran visit is on "possible military dimension": IAEA chief | Xinhua | Jan 29 2012

                  In answer to questions about some ambiguities over the report, the IAEA chief said, "It (the report) does not say Iran has nuclear weapons. It does not say that Iran has decided to develop nuclear weapons."

                  "However, the report says that we have the information that indicates that Iran has engaged in activities linked with the development of nuclear explosive devices. Therefore, we have required Iran to clarify these issues," he said.
                  To put it another way, just so its clear how subtle this business is. I believe neither of the below two statements is true

                  - Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons
                  - Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.

                  Objectively speaking we are in between those two statements, wth good reason and I believe thats been the dominant position on the board since 2009 when the clandestine plant Frodo, near Qom was discovered.
                  Last edited by Double Edge; 31 Jan 12,, 21:13.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by RoccoR View Post
                    The two largest emerging markets on the planet; China and India. And they can hold-off the sanctions.
                    Question is how long for ?

                    "It's a blow," said David Hartwell, senior Middle East analyst at IHS Jane's, adding that Iran may have discounted prices to keep the Chinese and Indians on their side. "If you have two major countries like India and China saying they will not abide by the sanctions, that's going to keep a vital line open for the Iranians to continue to sidestep the sanctions and get foreign capital."

                    He said India and China could just be trying to buy time to diversify their oil supplies and may steer away from Iran, especially if Saudi Arabia -- India's largest source of oil imports -- were to ramp up production and offer an attractively priced alternative.
                    My feeling is the bolded bit is the probable reason.

                    It was always going to be a challenge to find a replacement. But if successful then do not see any reason for these two not to comply. And then the rest of Asia will follow.

                    Bear in mind the EU sanctions only come into effect from July 1 2012

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Double Edge, et al,

                      As I said, Iran could opt to withdraw from the Treaty. This would get it out from under the Compliance requirements. They would essentially be free, as a sovereign nation, to pursue any line of technological endeavor they deemed in their best interest.
                      Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                      Question is how long for ?
                      (COMMENT)

                      Well, the theory that the Saudi's could under cut the Iranians and still make a profit is possible; but with consequences.

                      Any losses the Saudi's encumbered would be passed-on to other customers to, at the very least, to the break-even point.

                      Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                      It was always going to be a challenge to find a replacement. But if successful then do not see any reason for these two not to comply. And then the rest of Asia will follow.

                      Bear in mind the EU sanctions only come into effect from July 1 2012.
                      (COMMENT)

                      There are two very likely consequences falling-out of the sanctions. Almost immediately:
                      • China and India will enjoy lower fuel costs which will have a favorable impact on their economies. The sanctions work for them, in their favor. They are happy about it. If China didn't want the sanctions, the could have VETO'd the measure at the Security Council. But that VETO would have been counterproductive to their goal; lower fuel prices.
                        NOTE: The Chinese are, indeed, inscrutable. They are a key player in the Six-Party Talks with North Korea, who has on occasion, provided Iran with proscribe technology.
                      • With the sanctions, the supply of oil will be diminished and the cost will have a corresponding rise; adversely impacting the American consumer.


                      This is just the first of a series of costs associated with the US trying to enforce the NPT and playing the part of "World Police."

                      Most Respectfully,
                      R

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by RoccoR View Post
                        Double Edge, et al,

                        As I said, Iran could opt to withdraw from the Treaty. This would get it out from under the Compliance requirements. They would essentially be free, as a sovereign nation, to pursue any line of technological endeavor they deemed in their best interest.
                        If they do that Iran will be in a worse position than prior. It would be a bad move and provide an additional indicator as to their intent. And intent is very crucial here.

                        Already today they face that problem to then compound it for no gain seems odd to me.

                        Originally posted by RoccoR View Post
                        (COMMENT)

                        Well, the theory that the Saudi's could under cut the Iranians and still make a profit is possible; but with consequences.

                        Any losses the Saudi's encumbered would be passed-on to other customers to, at the very least, to the break-even point.
                        I think the deal the Saudi's offered China & India isn't sweet enough to bite. There is time for more haggling.

                        Originally posted by RoccoR View Post
                        (COMMENT)

                        There are two very likely consequences falling-out of the sanctions. Almost immediately:
                        • China and India will enjoy lower fuel costs which will have a favorable impact on their economies. The sanctions work for them, in their favor. They are happy about it. If China didn't want the sanctions, the could have VETO'd the measure at the Security Council. But that VETO would have been counterproductive to their goal; lower fuel prices.
                          NOTE: The Chinese are, indeed, inscrutable. They are a key player in the Six-Party Talks with North Korea, who has on occasion, provided Iran with proscribe technology.
                        • With the sanctions, the supply of oil will be diminished and the cost will have a corresponding rise; adversely impacting the American consumer.


                        This is just the first of a series of costs associated with the US trying to enforce the NPT and playing the part of "World Police."

                        Most Respectfully,
                        R
                        There will be rising cost for everybody when supply is reduced. Everybody will have to bear it. This willingness should it occur will send a signal to Iran as to the worlds opinion about their current path.
                        Last edited by Double Edge; 31 Jan 12,, 23:56.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Another school of thought

                          When Mark Dubowitz, executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which is closely aligned with Netanyahu's Likud Party, pushed the idea of sanctions against any financial institution that did business with Iran's Central Bank, the aim was to make it impossible for countries that import Iranian crude to continue to be able to make payments for the oil.

                          Dubowitz wanted virtually every country importing Iranian crude except China and India to cut off their imports. He argued that reducing the number of buyers to mainly China and India would not result in a rise in the price of oil, because Iran would have to offer discounted prices to the remaining buyers.

                          Global oil analysts warned, however, that such a sanctions regime could not avoid creating a spike in oil prices.
                          Obama Seeks to Distance U.S. from Israeli Attack | IPS | Jan 03 2012

                          This implies China & India have already negotiated exemptions from the sanctions. This brings into question whether Japan & Korea will also likewise ask to be exempted.

                          The result is likely to be a sanctions regime that reduces Iranian exports only marginally - not the "crippling sanctions" demanded by Netanyahu and Barak. Any hike in oil prices generated by sanctions against Iran's oil sector, moreover, would only hurt Obama's re- election chances.
                          .

                          Of course the big problem with exemptions is what happens to the exempted countries if war breaks out. They will be scrambling and causing even more upset in the oil markets. It would be rather risky for countries to follow this path.

                          So how can exemptions make sense at all in this case ?

                          only if there is no war ;)
                          Last edited by Double Edge; 01 Feb 12,, 23:41.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                            You think Iran is bargaining? I'd say they are playing poker and bluffing big time.
                            Originally posted by RoccoR View Post
                            Whether or not Iran has a CNWDI Program, or not, is not the issue. It is Iran's single gold bargaining chip. It is all about what Iran will give-up, in turn, for what it wants.
                            Both of these are the same.

                            The suggestion is that Iran's nuclear charade is a means to an end.

                            Maybe they just want to get out of the doghouse they put themselves in since Khomeni got into office.

                            What is that end ? What does Iran want ?

                            Originally posted by RoccoR View Post
                            Iran wants to be the dominate power in the Persian Gulf. They want to be the voice of Islam - the voice of Power, the Republic that made good - commanding the respect of every nation enjoined to pay homage. They want to be the hegemony. This is what they want. Give them this and they will dispense with any Program. But "uncertainty" of where they are and what they are doing plays a key role in this.
                            How do we give them this ? is it something to give or rather something Iran has to achieve on their own.

                            Why doesn't Iran just become a more powerful economy and improve the lot of their people. This will give them much more respect than any nukes ever will. All nukes do is help them defend themselves, there is no power projection with them at all. That will be down to how superior their forces are in relation to those in the neighbourhood. No nukes required. That Iran would want nukes appears somewhat spurious in light of this aim. It has to be no more than a bargaining chip.

                            For what ? can anybody give them what they want.

                            Their current path is one that leads to almost complete economic & political isolation. And this for a country that is blessed with loads of oil & gas.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Double Edge, et al,

                              “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else.”
                              _________ Winston Churchill

                              Just one man's thought.
                              Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                              Originally posted by RoccoR View Post
                              Iran wants to be the dominate power in the Persian Gulf. They want to be the voice of Islam - the voice of Power, the Republic that made good - commanding the respect of every nation enjoined to pay homage. They want to be the hegemony. This is what they want. Give them this and they will dispense with any Program. But "uncertainty" of where they are and what they are doing plays a key role in this. The UNSC and the IAEA want the additional protocols for inspections simply because they don't know.

                              How do we give them this ? is it something to give or rather something Iran has to achieve on their own.

                              ... (CUT) ...

                              For what ? can anybody give them what they want.

                              Their current path is one that leads to almost complete economic & political isolation. And this for a country that is blessed with loads of oil & gas.

                              (COMMENT)

                              It has been said in Persian Philosophy, that Muhammad was the first Great General and that Islam is the only religion founded by a military leader.

                              There are some that have tried to convince me that the word "Jihad," corrected translated, means something on the order of --- "personal struggle." I really doubt that Muhammad was thinking along those lines when he initiated raids on caravans, or began the campaign of sieges of cities and towns during his rise to power. It is often said that other religion has been instigated by these means. Those that are a student of the teachings of Muhammad and want to emulate his practices (like Ayatollah Ali Khamenei) -- accept that Muhammad was a great strategist --- a strategic thinker on the first order, and that every action had a calculated purpose. Muhammad's use of guerrilla war, the practice of successive ambush and raid, make him one of the first leaders that rose to power almost entirely through insurgent tactics.

                              Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, is a faithful follower; and believes that lying is permissible in order to deceive an "enemy."
                              Originally posted by Ayatollah Khomeini
                              Americans are the great Satan, the wounded snake.

                              SOURCE
                              Americans are the great Satan... at BrainyQuote

                              In deed, it may not be possible to give them what they want. But it may be possible to shift the focus of hegemony to the confines of the Persian Gulf and let their fellow Islamic states appropriately deal with them.
                              Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                              Why doesn't Iran just become a more powerful economy and improve the lot of their people. This will give them much more respect than any nukes ever will. All nukes do is help them defend themselves, there is no power projection with them at all. That will be down to how superior their forces are in relation to those in the neighbourhood. No nukes required. That Iran would want nukes appears somewhat spurious in light of this aim. It has to be no more than a bargaining chip.

                              (COMMENT)

                              Like American Leaders, the Supreme Leader, the commonality is in believing one has a higher calling, transcending the destiny of the mere plebeian and rabble. It is not about the people - but the destiny of the culture.

                              The nuclear issue is a tool in politics. But it is also, to some, an argument on the "right to chose their own destiny;" and not being submissive to an external power of infidels.

                              This is were America comes to a decision point.

                              Last weak, like children sometimes do in a playground, they take the toe of their shoe and draw a line in the sand. Then they boastfully declare (with their most Interesting Man in the World Game Face)!!! Cross that line! Clearly implying that something of consequence will happen if they do. The SECDEF's (Leon Panetta) declaration that "Iranian nukes and closing the strait as a "red line" for the U.S."

                              We artificially limit the number of options we have. Now is the time to formulate a strategy.

                              If the Iranian do what I did as a kid, they will not hesitate. They will cross the line and let the US make the provocative move.

                              I refer you to the first quote, supra - by: Winston Churchill

                              Most Respectfully,
                              R

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Sir,decision makers aren't the always the greatest minds of all,so they might indeed cross the line.And your chaps might indeed do something deadly stupid to your well being as a superpower.Such as starting a fight without intending to finish it by all means.

                                I agree with you that regional hegemony is what Iran wants.That an Ayatollah happens to be in charge is not relevant for this task.A Shah-in-Shah or a president would do the same. They also deserve it more than the worthless Arab regimes and unless a foreign power steps in,they will eventually get what they want.Putting much faith in the Arabs and leading from behind won't suffice.Unless your purpose is to be injured and insulted in the same time.
                                That fundamentally leads to 3 possible outcomes: 1.mobilize your nation's resources and fight to destroy Persia 2.give up the hegemony of the ME to the Mullahs 3.strike a deal with the Persian nationalists-offer them support to overthrow the Mullahs and the hegemony of the Gulf. Option 3 would serve everyone best.
                                Those who know don't speak
                                He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X