How Do You Rate the Chances of a Military Confrontation Between the US and Iran?

nicephoras · Jul 4, 2005

!Bob said:

If you had read my post, you would see that I took that from another analyst. If you want to accuse someone of over-flexing their imagination, try that guy. I had addressed everything you said in your reply but you still went on to make unnecessary explanations. I gave possible reasons for an American attack, one of them being the possibility of Iran developing nuclear weapons. Don't forget how Bush's reasonings changed with regards to the war in Iraq. WMD to start with, liberation to end with. I wanted to cover all possible basis since you don't know what line of reasoning people could take and how that could change as circumstances change.
Click to expand...

Bush's reasoning never changed. IT NEVER CHANGED. The administration has admitted that WMD was a pretext for going to war, and that it was the most convenient.

!Bob said:

My understanding of threat was nuclear weapons. Thanks for showing that any peaceful nuclear technology and economic benefits for Iran are also deemed as a threat. Unless your statement is indicating that Iran has publicly stated their nuclear weapons program.
Click to expand...

Iran has publicly stated that it will not be deterred from making nuclear weapons by anyone. So yes.

!Bob said:

More lack of knowledge on the subject. If you had read or followed the reasonings for the difficulties in dealing with Iran you would know how wrong your arguments are. Iraq had everything in one installation and it was widely known where everything was. Bit of the difference from the situation in Iran and one of the main reasons analysts are very optimistic at the effectiveness of tactical air strikes.
Click to expand...

The US isn't Israel. They have far more aerial power. They'll carpet bomb any place with potential nuclear weapons after taking out Iran's air defenses in a few days.

!Bob said:

True it is the best spy program probably and we saw how accurate it was on Iraqi WMDs. The post by Ben regarding Bigjake's question is from Fox. If someone on Fox says there may be installations we don't know about, you should pick up some clues.
Click to expand...

Gosh, you'd think the US would only bomb places where they know weapons are located. Hahahahahahahahahahaha

!Bob said:

So just to recap, you said there was no indiscriminate bombings in WWII and when I gave you examples of nukes, firebombings and Germany you came up with this. First of all, thanks for stating that there was reason in these specifically targeted civilian populations. Secondly, if you're gonna make claims that the other person doesn't know what the word is, you should first know what it means. Or you could just check in a dictionary, here I'll help you; Mr Webster can be helpful in these case;
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=indiscriminate&x=0&y=0
1 a : not marked by careful distinction : deficient in discrimination and discernment
Click to expand...

Are you retarded? Seriously, are you? These bombings were carefully chosen. They were carefully planned. They were done with discernment and discrimination. Just because you think that killing civilians is bad, does not mean that the targets were chosen indiscriminately. They were not.

!Bob said:

Sorry I thought you said Iraq war was won by air strikes!!
Click to expand...

Please provide evidence of this.

!Bob said:

I guess small landing of marines and the small number of troops in Iraq are just for fun.
Click to expand...

Are you insane? An occupation force to take over Iraq and a small force to capture the straits of Hormuz are VASTLY different things.

!Bob said:

A war is not complete until the objectives are met. Have the objectives of the Iraq been met yet (depending on which objective you go by again). Just because Bush goes on TV saying we've won and it's finished doesn't make it the case. If the war had truely been finished the soldiers would be back home instead of dying in Iraq.
Click to expand...

The objective of the war? Yes, it has been met. The objective of the occupation? No, it hasn't. There's a difference.

!Bob said:

Now I can safely put you in the Bush camp.
Click to expand...

That shows you have absolutely no ability to read.

!Bob said:

So I assume this liberation was the purpose from the beginning and WMDs were just a side issue that happened to be mentioned too many times at the beginning and somehow the Brits misunderstanding and using WMDs as the reason for war since the Attorney General's (Lord Goldsmith) report specifically stated that a war for liberation as it's primary reason is illegal
Click to expand...

The United States administration has admitted that it used WMDs as a pretext to go to war in Iraq, because WMDs were the easiest pretext to claim. So yes, you dumb douchebag, that WAS the purpose from the beginning!

!Bob said:

Sorry but I didn't know such wars were really allowed. Again thanks for showing the American perspective (and I hope not all Americans think this way). America cannot attack a country with the sole purpose of turning it into a "crater".
Click to expand...

Of course it can! What do you think it did when it bombed Serbia?

!Bob said:

I doubt the rest of the world will be too happy and even if America is the only superpower, I doubt it could go up against the rest of the world.
Click to expand...

A false assumption which implies someone will retaliate against the US. Which they won't.

!Bob said:

It doesn't happen because of the dire consequences but it has happened in the past where one nation thought too highly of themselves and you being the history expert will probably know what I'm talking about...
Click to expand...

Actually, I don't. I can't think of a single great empire save Persia (twice) that was defeated by a single military campaign. And it certainly wasn't due to arrogance.

!Bob said:

This might be a case of dumb and dumber and then you. I said "I'm pretty sure Napolean's tactics did not involve air superiority and destruction of key military and command installations before or during the invasion." Any military tactics, even if you ask a 5 year old would involve destruction of key enemy installations.
Click to expand...

I do believe we're just starting to plumb the depths of your stupidity. Do go on.

!Bob said:

Now can we please quit it with these stupid e-penis arguments? If you are here for a proper discussion, then fine but if you want to randomly attack me just for the sake of doing it and distorting the point of the argument. Maybe I am being too mature...
Click to expand...

You attacked another poster for having no "common sense" on military issues and then proceeded to sprew utter nonsense that demonstrates you haven't a clue. Such as your insistence that Iraq and Iran would be analogous wars (they would not), that you NEED a ground war to achieve your objectives (you don't) and that the US went to war over WMDs (something they have stated is not true). On top of that, you're actually claiming that Iran hasn't publicly stated that they're not developing a nuclear weapons program, when they've been claiming "no one will stop us from achieving our nuclear goals". Then there was your bizarre foray into military history where you completely failed to understand that the concept of a land march into hideously difficult terrain to capture one city may in fact be dumb.
You are, in short, misinformed, ignorant of history, ignorant of military tactics, ignorant of Iran and US pronouncement on key issues, and insanely gullible since you believe that an invastion from Azerbaijan is possible. On top of that, you somehow think that having an understand of what Bush will do implies support of Bush's tactics. Which renders your reasoning skills no better than than those of a meth addict going cold turkey.

Iranian Monitor · Jul 4, 2005

!Bob said:

I read something about this and how Iran was one of the major players in an attempt to influence OPEC to change from dollar to euro however I was under the impression that this was for all purposes nullified when KSA stood firm against it.
Click to expand...

If KSA stands against it, it would dampen its prospects. But Iran, as far as I know, is going ahead with its plans to have an independent exchange for the oil market. If successful, it would have major consequences for the world economy which today is basically premised on US dollars.

If the Saudis stand against it, it would be purely due to US pressures. They were intially open to the idea, and implicitly endorced it, since even they were feeling threatened somewhat by all the talk about "war on terrorism".

Maybe that is one of the reasons George Bush was walking hand in hand with the Saudi royals not long ago!

!Bob · Jul 4, 2005

Dear nicephoras,

As I told I will be the more mature person and not respond to your drivel. Anyone reading this thread can see what utter rubbish you are talking without the need for me to further show you the error of your ways. I have proven you to be ignorant on more than one occassion and no matter how many times you shout calling me dumb, it will not change the facts. I think this is a case of "bullsh!t until the other guy believes you're telling the truth and then carry on until you believe you're telling the truth". Unfortunately it seems to have happened with you.

I will not be dragged down to your level.

Kind regads,

!Bob

Iranian Monitor · Jul 4, 2005

BTW, here is the article by William Clark on the issue. As you might recall, Clark was the National Security guy who became famous pointing out how Bush himself had pushed Clark to look at Iraq for the culprits behind 9/11.

For the record, I personally do NOT agree that this is the real motive for any war against Iran. The motive dates to neocon dreams of empire and can be found in their PNAC.

http://www.energybulletin.net/2913.html

The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target: The Emerging Euro-denominated International Oil Marker
by William Clark
...
In 2005-2006, The Tehran government has a developed a plan to begin competing with New York's NYMEX and London's IPE with respect to international oil trades - using a euro-denominated international oil-trading mechanism. This means that without some form of US intervention, the euro is going to establish a firm foothold in the international oil trade. Given U.S. debt levels and the stated neoconservative project for U.S. global domination, Tehran's objective constitutes an obvious encroachment on U.S. dollar supremacy in the international oil market.
...
Click to expand...

nicephoras · Jul 4, 2005

!Bob said:

I have proven you to be ignorant on more than one occassion
Click to expand...

Dear !Bob,

No you haven't. You've been shown to be a charlatan who doesn't understand the issues. But I accept your admission that you were wrong.

Regards,

nicephoras

Iranian Monitor · Jul 4, 2005

Bob,

For every person who posts here, there are several who read the comments and whose egos aren't implicated. Although people are inevitably affected by their prejudices and preconceived notions, at the end, people like nicephoras expose how the "other side" of the debate is all about throwing around insults.

My advise is to ignore him, unless he says something that allows you to make your own points. He has no point to make except the point that is clear: he thinks insults and labels win arguments with anyone except the already converted.

JBigjake · Jul 4, 2005

Iranian Monitor said:

As I mentioned, Iran's GDP (purchasing power parity index) is over $500 billion. Indeed, 2004 estimates are $516.7 billion. See:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2001.html
Iran's growth year this year is around 7%. Last year (2004) it was 6.3%. See: http://www.indexmundi.com/iran/gdp_real_growth_rate.html
Click to expand...

IM cites CIA & Pravda in same post!
in the CIA info: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html#Econ
Economy - overview:
Iran's economy is marked by a bloated, inefficient state sector, over reliance on the oil sector, and statist policies that create major distortions throughout. Most economic activity is controlled by the state. Private sector activity is typically small-scale - workshops, farming, and services. President KHATAMI has continued to follow the market reform plans of former President RAFSANJANI, with limited progress. Relatively high oil prices in recent years have enabled Iran to amass some $30 billion in foreign exchange reserves, but have not eased economic hardships such as high unemployment and inflation. The proportion of the economy devoted to the development of weapons of mass destruction remains a contentious issue with leading Western nations.
Population below poverty line: 40% (2002 est.)
GDP - real growth rate: 6.3% (2004 est.)
Inflation rate (consumer prices): 15.5% (2004 est.)
Exchange rates: rials per US dollar - 8,614 (2004), 8,193.9 (2003), 6,907 (2002), 1,753.6 (2001), 1,764.4 (2000) note: Iran has been using a managed floating exchange rate regime since unifying multiple exchange rates in March 2002
Illicit drugs: despite substantial interdiction efforts, Iran remains a key transshipment point for Southwest Asian heroin to Europe; domestic narcotics consumption remains a persistent problem and according to official Iranian statistics there are at least two million drug users in the country; lax anti-money-laundering regulations

Iranian Monitor · Jul 4, 2005

JBigjake said:

IM cites CIA & Pravda in same post!
Click to expand...

Not quite. Any legitimate source, including the World Bank and the IMF, as long as they are measuring the economy using the "purchasing power parity index" will give you the same estimates. Those estimates, incidentially, underestimate Iran's economy still. But they are certainly better than using an index that is not mean for comparative analysis! The other index you see are based on "real dollars". Well, in Iran, you can take $1,000 real American dollars and live a life that would cost your $5,000 in the US! A country's standard of living cannot be understood using "real dolar" figures. Those figues are worthwhile for other purposes, although sometimes out of ignorance and often just to make a political point, people use the wrong index to make their points.

As for the synopsis of Iran's economy by the CIA, it is rather accurate. And accepted by even Iranian economists. Every politician in Iran who has any economic sense knows the bloated state beaurcracy and control over the economy has to be loosened up. But it is harder to do when it can cause short terms problems. For instance, in Iran, a lot of things are heavily subsidized by the government: from the gas you put in the gas tank, to the food you eat, to the price of pharmaceuticals, and mcuh more. It would cause a major political backlash for polticians who want to genuinely tackle the problem.

Here is a good article, incidentally, in this very issue. In the context of this article, incidentally, it is apprporiate to use real dollar GDP estimates for per capita income ($2,000) as opposed to the purchasing power parity ($7,500) because if subsidies are removed, initially people will have to pay for the goods using their "real dollar income", although the money saved can be put back in their pockets to raise those "real dollar incomes".

BTW, for the record, "South Tehran" is the poorest section of Tehran. Analogous to "South Central LA" without the high crime rate.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8457959/
Iran guzzles gas at its own cost
Fuel is kept cheap, but oil-rich nation has less to sell abroad
Click to expand...

JBigjake · Jul 4, 2005

Iranian Monitor said:

for the record, "South Tehran" is the poorest section of Tehran. Analogous to "South Central LA" without the high crime rate.
Click to expand...

What, no al-Crippohs or al-Bloodahs?

Iranian Monitor · Jul 4, 2005

JBigjake said:

What, no al-Crippohs or al-Bloodahs?
Click to expand...

"al" is Arabic. Not Persian. And Persian get offended when they are confused with Arabs.

Let me just say one thing about the Iranian economy and democracy. As it should be evident by that MSNBC article, when it comes to some of the problems in Iran's economy, the problem in a way is the opposite! Too many elections promises, too many elections, and ergo too much wasteful government spending.

You have this at a smaller scale in the US, because your "system" does indirectly vet candidates. And that system ultimately has heavy capitalist bias, given the money that needs to be raised and the lobbysits and party big and corporate big whigs who have to endorce your candidacy.

In Iran's just concluded election, to fight for votes, even Rafsanjani had to make some spectacular promises. Including giving every familiy $11,000 each in shares in industries to be privatized, as well as $160 a month in additional unemployment benefits.

The guy they elected, Ahmadinejad, however was implicity promising them more. And the Iranian parliament, to keep the voters happy, has refused to slash the huge state subsidies that are eating away at the Iranian economy.

As I noted when the early results of the first round elections were coming, showing a remarkably strong showing by Karrubi (promised every family an added government stipend of $60 a month as just a handout, to everyone!), and Ahmadinejad the problem is not about democracy per se! In Iran, indeed, a lot of things that are wrong are wrong because the decision making appeals to the lowest common denominator. In other words, the "system" ultimately relies for its power base on the poor, yet giving them "feel good answers" that don't necessarily solve their problems.

JBigjake · Jul 4, 2005

Iranian Monitor said:

"al" is Arabic. Not Persian. And Persian get offended when they are confused with Arabs.
Click to expand...

Guess you missed the smiley. I don't speak Farsi & didn't feel like asking those I know who do for a catchphrase,
P.S. Some Americans get offended when people who live in this country use language such as "your system". I don't know if you're a citizen or not, but get with the program while you're here.

Iranian Monitor · Jul 4, 2005

I am going to post two perspectives on Iran's new president. One from Patrick Seale writing for Al Hayat, an Arabic publication. The other from Micahel Rubin, a prominent neoconservative who was once the advisor to Iraq's Coaltion Provisional Authority. Both these viewpoints are offered from a perspective that is knowledgeable, despite diamterically opposed biases.

Iran’s Challenge to its Neighbours and the World

Patrick Seale Al-Hayat - 30/06/05//

Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad’s landslide election victory as President of Iran is a welcome development in a Middle East region profoundly disturbed by unresolved conflicts, corrupt elites and violent foreign intervention.

When he is sworn in on August 4, his performance and style of government will be closely watched to see how he intends honouring his ambitious pledge to make Iran a ‘role model of a modern, advanced and powerful Islamic society.’

His unexpected victory – which took all Iran-watchers by surprise – could provide a healthy stimulus to Iran’s Arab neighbours, as well as challenging the United States to rethink its Iran policy, long held in thrall by the American embassy hostage crisis of 1979.

The first thing to note is that the Iranian election campaign gave the region an example of vigorous, authentic democracy, years ahead of what passes for elections in most Arab countries and very different from recent elections held under American or Israeli occupation. It is true that Iran’s Council of Guardians whittled down the presidential candidates from 1,000 to just seven, and that there were suspicions of vote rigging in some areas, but this was no reason for the U.S. to denounce the elections as ‘sham’ and ‘illegitimate’. Washington may yet have to eat its words.

Indeed, the United States has done itself a disservice by its churlish response to the Iranian elections. Laughable remarks by the State Department that Iran ‘is out of step with the rest of the region and with the currents of freedom and liberty that have been so apparent in Iraq and Afghanistan…’ do nothing to enhance America’s battered reputation.

When Stephen J Hadley, President George W Bush’s National Security Adviser describes Iran as ‘the number one state sponsor of terrorism’, adding that ‘Iran’s policy is to get rid of Israel’, he strikes a blinkered, out-dated and propagandist note. Such statements may play well with fervent neo-conservatives but they are unsuited to today’s realities.

They tend to confirm the view of many analysts that, not for the first time, the United States is missing a chance to correct its aim in the Middle East.

Ahmadi-Nejad’s campaign themes were social justice for the poor, the redistribution of Iran’s oil wealth, a crackdown on corruption in high places and a return to the traditional values and the ‘spiritual purity’ of the 1979 Islamic Revolution. His website was called mardomyar – ‘friend of the people’.

If he can implement it, his radical programme is in stark contrast to the situation in several Arab countries, where the state is all too often reduced to a hollow shell by the greed of a privileged and corrupt elite, which dominates the economy and operates largely above the law and out of the control of state institutions and the state bureaucracy.

Standing up to America

Iran also provides a challenge to the Arab world by its proud and self-confident nationalism, so different from the defeatism and shabby compromises evident in many parts of the Arab world. Determined to resist foreign – and especially American -- dictates, Iran wants to deal with the rest of the world on the basis of equality and mutual respect.

Although he has little experience of foreign affairs, President-elect Ahmadi-Nejad has made clear that he wants to improve Iran’s standing in the world. This is not to suggest that he is more anti-American than his predecessors – on the contrary, he may be ready for a serious dialogue with Washington -- but he will show no tolerance for the threats and insults which have been the staple fare of American discourse about Iran.

The high oil price, which is expected to net Iran close to $50 billion in the year to March 2006, and its strategic relations with both China and Russia, are factors which are expected to stiffen Iranian resistance to American demands.

Ahmadi-Nejad has said he wants closer ties with Iran’s Arab neighbours. His election is therefore good news for the survival, even the strengthening, of the Tehran-Damascus-Hizballah axis, which has emerged as the main obstacle to American and Israeli regional hegemony, and which, for this reason, has come under fierce attack from Washington and Tel Aviv.

Syria, in particular, sometimes considered the ‘weak link’ in the axis, will be anxious to see what added support it can get from Tehran. Bush administration officials have accused Syria of stoking the violence in Iraq and Lebanon and of backing militant Palestinian factions against Israel, while U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has mounted a campaign to isolate Syria diplomatically.

Neo-conservatives in Washington and Israeli hawks have made no secret that their aim is ‘regime change’ in Damascus, on the argument that this would bring about the collapse of the entire Tehran-Damascus-Hizballah axis.

Indeed, had Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former Iranian president, won the presidential election -- as was widely predicted -- he might have been inclined to sacrifice ties with Syria and Hizballah in the interest of a deal with the United States. Such speculation has now been ruled out.

This month, the European Three (E3), Britain, France and Germany, are due to resume negotiations with Iran over its nuclear programme. They are expected to present a ‘final offer’ of economic, financial and technological benefits in exchange for an Iranian commitment to put a final end to all uranium enrichment. The United States has already expressed scepticism over the possible outcome of the negotiations.

Ahmadi-Nejad, an engineer by training, is very keen to promote Iran’s technological progress. He has said that ‘nuclear energy is a result of the

Iranian people’s scientific progress,’ and that no one will be allowed to block Iran’s further technological development.

While committed to pursue Iran’s efforts to master the uranium fuel cycle for the peaceful purpose of electricity generation, he has declared that nuclear weapons were ‘against Islamic values.’ It would be wise for the United States and Israel to take him at his word, rather than to seek to browbeat him with the threat of military intervention.

America’s ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency said recently that the U.S. ‘will not accept a nuclear-weapons capable Iran,’ and that ‘military action is an option if Tehran fails to take ‘necessary steps.’’ With the United States trapped in the Iraqi quagmire and militarily over-stretched, such belligerent talk seems unrealistic and needlessly provocative.
Click to expand...

Iranian Monitor · Jul 4, 2005

The other side:

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_5-7-2005_pg3_4

Iran’s hardline choice —Barry Rubin

Iran’s choice for its next president, the hardline Mayor of Teheran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is likely to worsen relations with the West and the country’s international isolation. Yet in domestic terms the Islamist regime is likely to be better off than it would have been with a more moderate result.

Clearly, Ahmadinejad has a real base of support. But the fact that he ran as a populist, talked about helping the poor, condemned the government’s performance, and acted almost like an opposition candidate are all irrelevant: he was the regime’s choice, and, in the end, he received official help even against rival hardline candidates.

The regime played its hand brilliantly. It turned the slightly more pragmatic Hashemi Rafsanjani, who disagreed with some current policies, into the “establishment” figure and its own man into the rebel. The government thus used anti-establishment feeling to revitalise its own rule. Given the fact that the last president, Muhammad Khatami, was a supporter of the reform movement — albeit a timid one who ultimately accomplished nothing — only underlines how thoroughly the rulers turned around the political situation.

Ahmadinejad is a representative of the younger activists in the anti-Shah revolution of a quarter-century ago. He was directly involved in the holding of American hostages in Iran, though exactly how much so remains a matter of dispute. Most worrisome of all, he is close to the two main groups that represent the most extreme elements in Iran: the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Basij organisation. The first is a parallel pro-regime army; the second is an organisation for intimidating opponents and anyone seeking a more open society.

However, concern that an even more radical leadership has taken over in Iran is mitigated by two factors. First, Ahmadinejad is more likely to focus on domestic issues, trying — with whatever degree of success is unclear — to improve living standards for the poorest Iranians. Second, the same group that has been in control ever since the revolution will basically continue to run ideological and foreign policy. The president has fewer powers than it seems, overshadowed particularly by Supreme Guide Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Nevertheless, Ahmadinejad’s election starkly clarifies the challenge that Iran poses for Western policy and Middle East stability. First and foremost, it sends a signal to the most extreme elements in Iran and that country’s terrorist clients — Lebanon’s Hezbollah, the Palestinian Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and various small groups operating against Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and other Arab countries — that they have a green light for launching attacks. They are likely to assume that Iran will support them whatever they do.

Outwardly, Iran has often been relatively cautious, but, at the covert level, it has been the world’s leading sponsor of terror. Sometimes individual Iranian officials may have acted on their own to order and coordinate specific operations; they will now feel freer to do so.

Moreover, Ahmadinejad openly advocates Iran’s crash programme to obtain nuclear weapons. Most Iranian politicians — at least those allowed by the government to function openly — support the program, but favour a quieter and more cautious approach. Rafsanjani, for example, put building better economic relations with the West ahead of pushing forward on the nuclear front.

If Ahmadinejad is president of a nuclear Iran, he is more likely to use the weapons in an adventurous manner. This does not mean that he would fire them, but rather that he would use them for purposes of diplomatic blackmail, raising threats to crisis levels. Since Iranian leaders daily proclaim their desire to wipe Israel off the map and to fight the US (Ahmadinejad stepped on a picture of an American flag on his way to vote), the risk of confrontation has increased.

Finally, Ahmadinejad is likely to be bolder in subverting stability in Iraq, and his victory will encourage radical Iranian officials and extremists within Iraq itself. Iran is already sending many agents into Iraq and supporting clients seeking to turn that country into a clone. Iraqis, including Shia Muslims — who follow the same version of Islam as Iranians — generally reject such interference. A more militant Iranian posture is likely to increase friction with Iraq, as well as inspire more anti-American violence there.

In short, Iran’s electoral outcome is a dangerous one, though precisely how destabilising it ultimately turns out to be will depend on Ahmadinejad’s actions and the degree of power granted him by Khamenei. Moreover, dealing with such an openly extreme Iran — radical even by the hardline regime’s standards — will be a challenge not just for the US, but for Europe as well.

Will European countries try to pretend that Ahmadinejad’s militant rhetoric and provocations don’t matter and that some diplomatic solution to Iran’s nuclear ambition can be found? With Rafsanjani, either a real agreement or the pretence of cooperation would have been easy to maintain. But, with Ahmadinejad, a high level of appeasement will be necessary for even the most minimal diplomatic process to continue.

Some Iranian reformers and exiles put a bright face on Ahmadinejad’s election, arguing that his administration is more likely to show the regime’s real face and disabuse any Western hopes of compromise. Yet it may also represent the regime’s success at co-opting dissatisfaction with a quarter-century of radical Islamist rule. Whatever the outcome, for the West, Ahmadinejad’s victory means that everything related to Iran is set to become even hotter.
Click to expand...

!Bob · Jul 4, 2005

Thanks for the two articles but what I am confused about is how could facts be different? It is one thing to have diffent opinions based on facts but not to present different facts completely? As an example, one is saying Ahmadinejad has stated complete lack of interest in nuclear weapons as they are "he has declared that nuclear weapons were ‘against Islamic values'" while the other article is going by the line "Ahmadinejad openly advocates Iran’s crash programme to obtain nuclear weapons". So which is it?? There were other examples of distortion of facts between the two going beyond differing opinions but that was perhaps the most obvious and confusing.

Also when was the Ruben article written as it is referring to Ahmadinejad as one of the hostage takers in this obvious and unintelligent smear campaign? This has already been proven not to be the case. I wasn't able to get the details from the link provided.

Iranian Monitor · Jul 4, 2005

!Bob said:

Thanks for the two articles but what I am confused about is how could facts be different? It is one thing to have diffent opinions based on facts but not to present different facts completely? As an example, one is saying Ahmadinejad has stated complete lack of interest in nuclear weapons as they are "he has declared that nuclear weapons were ‘against Islamic values'" while the other article is going by the line "Ahmadinejad openly advocates Iran’s crash programme to obtain nuclear weapons". So which is it?? There were other examples of distortion of facts between the two going beyond differing opinions but that was perhaps the most obvious and confusing.

Also when was the Ruben article written as it is referring to Ahmadinejad as one of the hostage takers in this obvious and unintelligent smear campaign? This has already been proven not to be the case. I wasn't able to get the details from the link provided.
Click to expand...

From a neocon perspective, Rubin is as pretty close to a "factual presentation" as you can get Sure. In neocon lexicon, if someone says that Iran will pursue its nuclear energy program, that means Iran will pursue a nculear weapons program. And as for the "hostage taking" claim, I guess the best we can expect is that vague disclaimer regarding not knowing the "extent of his role".

All in all, it is better for neocon sympathisers to read Rubin than some of their other folks who run nothing but an out and out mere smear campaign, and fill their articles outright lies.

Iranian Monitor · Jul 5, 2005

This article, appearing in an Israeli publication, is from Israel's former consul general in New York, Alon Pinkas. The assumption in this article is that Iran really wants nuclear weaspons, whereas I am convinced that if Iran is treated fairly, it will be satisfied with merely having "surge capacity".

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3108194,00.html

Should we bomb Iran?

Israeli military blow would not annihilate Iran’s nuclear capability
By Alon Pinkas

We can talk and fantasize about annihilating Iran’s nuclear capability with one bold IDF thrust, similar to the destruction of Iraq’s nuclear reactor in 1981. The truth is that it is much more complicated, perhaps even impossible.

As opposed to the Iraqi nuclear reactor, the Iranian nuclear program is decentralized, departmentalized, underground and clandestine.

The U.S. and Israel believe efforts, including the European initiative to link economic incentives with the eradication of Iran’s nuclear program and the U.S.’s threats of sanctions, to prevent Iran from stockpiling nuclear weapons will prove futile.
...
If Iran has made ‘good’ use of the information and material it had apparently purchased from the “father of the Pakistani bomb,” it may currently possess material for the creation of some 20 nuclear bombs. Without significant interference, the uranium enrichment will continue until a bomb is built and ready for launching on a Shihab-3 missile.

Israel would then have to entirely rethink the nature of its deterrence.
...
So how should Israel act? In 2000 an Israeli-American Strategic Policy Planning Group (SPPG) discussed the option of forming a “Defense Alliance” between the countries.

One of the issues examined at the time was the importing of cruise missiles to Israel. During one of the preliminary deliberations in Israel, a senior American official who supported the establishment of an alliance said to his Israeli counterparts, “It is evident to us why you are interested in the ‘Tomahawk’ missiles; Syria is definitely not reason enough – you believe it will add to your deterrence against Iran.”

This is not the sole reason, Israel said at the time.

“This position is not a realistic one,” the American official replied. “Iran is not 1980’s Iraq, and in any case you will never be permitted to use this weapon without American authorization. If a “Defense Alliance” would exist, an immediate Iranian threat would mean that the U.S., and not Israel, would apply military force against Iran.”

“Furthermore,” the American added, “our intelligence sources say that an Israeli attack on Iran would not necessarily be effective, and it is almost certain such an attack would not produce a decisive outcome. The political damage from such an attack would undoubtedly outweigh its military effectiveness.”

One can be skeptical of these intelligence reports, as three years later the U.S erroneously convinced itself that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that threaten the world.

But it remains highly unlikely that the American assessment regarding the effectiveness of a military blow against Iran has significantly changed.

If anything, the failure in Iraq has only strengthened the claim.

Politically-speaking, Israel adopted the American position: its policy revolves around the claim that the Iranian nuclear threat is not Israel’s concern alone - it is a real danger to the region and the entire free world.

The thing is, Iran may eventually realize its nuclear aspirations without mass U.S military intervention, but this sort of intervention is not probable.
Click to expand...