There has been a lot of articles with links to news articles that describe current events but I haven't seen many threads about how individual posters would deal with Iran, if they were the President of the United States. I know that the nuclear issue gets practically all the coverage in US media re: Iran but I think the nuclear issue is really a symptom of mistrust between the two nations. Anyway, if I was President, this is what I would do. 1) Remove the ban on civilian aviation that has costs hundreds of Iranian lives with no apparent benefit for the US. What does the US gain by preventing Boeing from selling aircraft parts that are used for civilian flights? All this measure has done is result in innocent Iranians being killed and helped strenghten support for the nuclear program. 2) Support measures, foreign and domestic, that result in REDUCED oil prices. Reduced oil prices mean lower revenue for the mullahs in Tehran. 3) MOST importantly, take actions that support the green opposition movement in Iran. Persuade the Germans and the EU (which have been successful) in sanctioning Siemens from providing sophisticated surveillance technology that the government uses to spy on its own citizens. I would do other things but those are what I can think of at the moment. At this point, I don't think the Islamic republic can be salvaged. It may have been possible in mid June but in the constant wave of protests on important dates (Qods day, US hostage taking day, Ashura, and the upcoming revolutionary day), if repressive actions taken by the governemnt continue, then the government faces an existential threat from its own people. That said, I do think Obama has pursued a very good course re: Iran. While the Bush administration rallied the already pressent fissures within the Iranian government, which helps increase Iran's influence, Obama has taken a policy that has exposed and opened cracks within the ruling establishment which make the conditions for a revolution more likely.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=9674321 Unfortunately, there's other companies (even from US) who have done good business with the Mullahs, too. When it comes to "big deals", nobody cares about who's the trading partner... Well, the Western companies will pull back from Iran now ... and the Chinese are gonna replace them completely ... so Khamenei & his puppet Ahmadinejad actually don't really have to fear tougher sanctions (that's why they still can afford playing "cat and mouse" games with the International Community). In the meanwhile, I fear that only military action (what's very dangerous for the whole region, though) can prevent the dictatorship from Tehran in getting the A bomb soon...
Yup, I knew Siemens stopped...but regardless, Siemens did provide technology that allowed the government to crack down on protesters in June. They just stopped recently. I agree that military action, and that is a COMPLETE military invasion of the country, IOW, a ground assault and removing the current government a la Iraq of 2003. However, Israel doesn't have the capabilities to do that alone and the US, which is the only country willing to do it that has the ability. And the US is in Afghanistan and Iraq. A simple attack on the nuclear facilities may delay the program by a couple of years BUT they can also result in: 1) if the mullahs are not going for the a-bomb and just for the capability, the people will compeltely unite around getting the bomb 2) the current Green movement will die 3) escalation into a regional war 4) higher oil prices during a global recession I just don't see much wisdom in an attack on the nuclear facilites WITHOUT a ground invasion.
There won't be any ground invasion in my eyes. If there should be taken military action, it's surely gonna be heavy air strikes at certain facilities. Btw: What do you think is the main reason (there might be more of them) for the current Iranian leadership to go for the A bomb?
Deterance. Even Iran gets few nukes, they cannot initiate it without Iran being totally destroyed. Israel and US have huge nuke pie. Iran is more likely to get the ability to make the nuke WITHOUT really do it. It stopped the program at 2003 after Mullahs saw the troubles US got in Iraq. Before that they believed they will be the next. This assessment was from NIE of US intelligent community. For US, the worry is NOT about Iran will launch nuke attack on Israel, but rather the nuke race amount the region's other players, aka. Saudi, Turkey and Egypt. Of course, with that ability, Iran is no longer be threatened by US.
That is a red herring argurment at best. What need does iran have for any deterrant? The US hasn't attacked them, even after the hostage situation. Israel hasn't ever attacked them, even though iran's proxies have attacked Israel for decades now. So what real reason is their for any deterrance on iran's part? But shaster lets apply your argument further, lets let Taiwan have nukes as a deterrant to China attacking them. Taiwan has a very real fear of a Chinese invasion, and China has nukes, therefore Taiwan should have nukes too right? Now iran themselves haven't attacked anyone first in I don't know how long, but the fact that they sanction terrorism is a very real and just concern for not allowing them to have nukes. No the way to deal with iran is to work with the people of Iran and give them support that they need to regain control of their country. I don't want a military intervention by the US. But I do think we need to give Mousavi and other reformers the same type of support we gave to Lech Walsea and the solidarity movement in Poland during the Cold War. The reformers in Iran should be given WorldWide support and more pressure brought to bear on Iran. I think the US should make it clear to iran and the people of iran that once the mullahs are gone relations with the US can normalize and trade agreements can be brokered and security agreements etc...
Okay...assume the heavy air strikes at the certain facilities take out some of the facilities (first of all, there are likely facilities that are very difficult to destroy via aerial bombardment...and there are some even unknown facilities). Interesting question, I think there are likely a lot of reasons for the current leadership to go for the A-bomb. First of all, I do think that part of it is to consolidate power. They know that a nuke will mean that no foreign force will attempt to overthrow them. Contrary to the "apolapolytic, messianic cult" prescribed by Netanyahu, I do not think the main motive of the regime is to nuke Israel. Not because they care about the welfare of Israelis...but because the nuking of Israel will guarantee the end of hteir power. And that's all they care about. And I do think part of it is to prevent regime change. They see Iraq and North Korea and they see North Korea has nukes and it maintained and Saddam didn't have one...and they see what happened to him. And part of it may also be to force the US to normalize relations...they saw that when India developed nukes in the 70s, the US started to normalize relations with India when India was a Soviet ally.
<< What need does iran have for any deterrant?>> - The Iran-Iraq War is still ingrained in the minds of many Iranians. I know this from personal experience. They see that the US and the international community (save for Syria and Israel) sided with Saddam, which Iranians view as the aggressor. As a result of the war, almost 1 million Iranians died. And Saddam was using chemical weapons on Iranian soldiers and Iranian civilians without a peep from the US or the UN. << The US hasn't attacked them, even after the hostage situation.>> - Very true. But the US does surround them, in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Persian Gulf and Central Asia. <<Israel hasn't ever attacked them, even though iran's proxies have attacked Israel for decades now.>> - True. But that's cuz Israel couldn't conduct an invasion of Iran without substantial loss. Israel had a hard time with Hezbollah in Lebanaon in 2006 and that would be a cakewalk against Iran. Iran wields too much influence. << So what real reason is their for any deterrance on iran's part? But shaster lets apply your argument further, lets let Taiwan have nukes as a deterrant to China attacking them. Taiwan has a very real fear of a Chinese invasion, and China has nukes, therefore Taiwan should have nukes too right?>> - Yup. Good argument. But Iran, in many ways, is like Israel in the Middle East. It is and has been hated by many Arabs and now Israel as well. <<Now iran themselves haven't attacked anyone first in I don't know how long, but the fact that they sanction terrorism is a very real and just concern for not allowing them to have nukes.>> - Yup. I do agree with that. I just don't know how much an aerial bombardment would solve. From what I have seen, Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons capability and have not yet decided on whether to weaponize. My belief is that they are going the Japan route (ie. creating a large infrastructure so that they can weaponize on a moments notice)..so if the current leadership is currently not pursuing weaponization, an aerial attack may completely change their minds and would possibly unite the people of Iran behind them...which would mean the end of the opposition movement for some time to come. But I just don't think the leadership would pass them over to Hezbollah. Iran has chemical weapons and haven't given it to anyone else either. No the way to deal with iran is to work with the people of Iran and give them support that they need to regain control of their country. I don't want a military intervention by the US. But I do think we need to give Mousavi and other reformers the same type of support we gave to Lech Walsea and the solidarity movement in Poland during the Cold War. The reformers in Iran should be given WorldWide support and more pressure brought to bear on Iran. I think the US should make it clear to iran and the people of iran that once the mullahs are gone relations with the US can normalize and trade agreements can be brokered and security agreements etc...[/QUOTE]
<< What need does iran have for any deterrant?>> - The Iran-Iraq War is still ingrained in the minds of many Iranians. I know this from personal experience. They see that the US and the international community (save for Syria and Israel) sided with Saddam, which Iranians view as the aggressor. As a result of the war, almost 1 million Iranians died. And Saddam was using chemical weapons on Iranian soldiers and Iranian civilians without a peep from the US or the UN. << The US hasn't attacked them, even after the hostage situation.>> - Very true. But the US does surround them, in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Persian Gulf and Central Asia. <<Israel hasn't ever attacked them, even though iran's proxies have attacked Israel for decades now.>> - True. But that's cuz Israel couldn't conduct an invasion of Iran without substantial loss. Israel had a hard time with Hezbollah in Lebanaon in 2006 and that would be a cakewalk against Iran. Iran wields too much influence. << So what real reason is their for any deterrance on iran's part? But shaster lets apply your argument further, lets let Taiwan have nukes as a deterrant to China attacking them. Taiwan has a very real fear of a Chinese invasion, and China has nukes, therefore Taiwan should have nukes too right?>> - Yup. Good argument. But Iran, in many ways, is like Israel in the Middle East. It is and has been hated by many Arabs and now Israel as well. <<Now iran themselves haven't attacked anyone first in I don't know how long, but the fact that they sanction terrorism is a very real and just concern for not allowing them to have nukes.>> - Yup. I do agree with that. I just don't know how much an aerial bombardment would solve. From what I have seen, Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons capability and have not yet decided on whether to weaponize. My belief is that they are going the Japan route (ie. creating a large infrastructure so that they can weaponize on a moments notice)..so if the current leadership is currently not pursuing weaponization, an aerial attack may completely change their minds and would possibly unite the people of Iran behind them...which would mean the end of the opposition movement for some time to come. But I just don't think the leadership would pass them over to Hezbollah. Iran has chemical weapons and haven't given it to anyone else either. No the way to deal with iran is to work with the people of Iran and give them support that they need to regain control of their country. I don't want a military intervention by the US. But I do think we need to give Mousavi and other reformers the same type of support we gave to Lech Walsea and the solidarity movement in Poland during the Cold War. The reformers in Iran should be given WorldWide support and more pressure brought to bear on Iran. I think the US should make it clear to iran and the people of iran that once the mullahs are gone relations with the US can normalize and trade agreements can be brokered and security agreements etc...[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE] A friendly bit of advice, you can use the quote tags to help space out your responses. I understand the arguments you make and I don't disagree with them. I just worry that this situation can spiral out of control in a way that will hurt everyone. With the US v USSR MAD was a very real outcome and thus made sense for each side. But looking at Iran v Israel, yes MAD applies to those 2 states, but MAD doesn't really apply to any iran v US situation. Iran, even if they could put warheads on rockets that could reach the US, we could take them out pre-emptivly without too much worry. Nuclear pre-emp that is. The one issue I have with your response is that I do think ahmadijad would give over weapons of MD to hezbollah or other lunatics to destroy Israel. And not even going into that whole wipe off the face of the Earth comment, i will even give the benefit of the doubt that it was mis-translated, but because of his actions towards his own people as well as bringing in hezbollah goons to attack protestors, and now giving more political power to the basji. He also has stated his beliefs about the 12th imam coming. I think the guy is a nutjob who would welcome a war of destruction.
Oranges and Apples. Taiwan is part of China with her name as "Republic of China" not "Republic of Taiwan". Taiwan's deterrence is to work out a peaceful unification agreement. For Iran, you probably forget about Axies of Evils. You mean like overthrow a democratically elect government and install a king?
China claims that, but in reality Taiwan is its own country. They haven't declared Independance due to chinese threats, but the movement is there and it is active. I bet if we gave them nukes you would see them make such a declaration. And I expect you would be ok with that as a form of deterrance right? [quote For Iran, you probably forget about Axies of Evils. You mean like overthrow a democratically elect government and install a king?[/QUOTE] Yes in 53 the CIA did support that coup, and in turn in 79 it was reversed by the Islamic revolution. As for that speech, the US makes one speech calling them part of an axis of evil, and lo and behold it means war....but you hear speeches weekly where Death to America is the theme and that is overlooked right? We should ignore those death to America and death to Israel speeches as rhetoric and that if iran had nukes they wouldn't do anything, but the US makes a single speech calling iran part of an axis of evil and that means iran should get nukes as a deterrant? weak ass argument there.
I don't know how to use the quote tages. This forum is too confusing for me. I just type. I do agree that AN would welcome destruction. But likely, he is not in charge of the nuclear program. All the leadership circles in Iran are power hungry thugs. They don't care about improving the Iranian economy, eduction, etc. They just care about remaining in power. That's why they (intelligently) created the Basij and the IRGC. It means that their government is much more resistant to a revoltution than Shah's was. Yea, the nuclear issue can spiral out of control. And Khamanei is a very paranoid individual. If there's one thing that engulfs him is his paranoi. I think, even he, recognizies an alliance with the US is in his interest. But he feels that the foundatioh of the Islamic Republic rests on three pillars: 1) anti-US 2) anti-Israel 3) hijab for women Without those three, the Islamic REpublic reduces its influence in the region (at least that's what I think he thinks). And he knows a war against the US or Israel would ensure the overthrow of the regime (which is the last thing he wants). So if AN was the Commander in Chief, I think it's a much different situation. You are correct with the domestic thugs that AN employed though. He has great influence in dometic affairs...his influece in international affairs is mainly ceremonial (stuff like appearing at the UN, signing treaties, etc). As far as the Axis of Evil, it's not so much the speech itself...I disagreed with the Axis of Evil (even though I agree taht the regime is evil) speech since that started the rise of the "neocons" in Tehran (ie. AN)...ie. AN was able to convince the publci that appeasing to the West over the nuclear issue only results in you getting placed on the Axis of Evil). They saw Bush invade Iraq (which was part of the Axis of Evil)...so they figured that it's not a game.
Thank you for being such a sensible poster here. It is a shame that so much happens and it is the everyday people that suffer. I did see somewhere that there is a movement in iran to go back to their Persian Roots. Any truth in that? And is that a good thing?
Thank you. You are a very sensible poster as well. As far as going back to the Persian roots, I think that's a constant aspiration. In many ways, the revolution in 1979 was a revolution of indepedence. Iran under the shah was widely regarded as a US puppet. Unfortunately, one dictatorship was replaced with another dictatorship. I think returnign to the Persian roots would be a good thing, yes. IMO, anyway.
When you want to quote someone with multiple paragraphs, use the first "quote" that you see from that poster you're quoting and copy it to the beginning of each quote you want to apply. To finish the quote as a separater between multiple quotes, just use "[/quote] to unquote. For example, if you want to quote daisrael, put "[q uote=daisrael;19896331]" before each of his points and [/quote] at the end. You can do that as many times as you want to.
That's what I fear as well. I have serious doubts that a religious-fanatic regime that repeatedly threatens the state of Israel (unfortunately, Hitler's book "Mein Kampf" wasn't taken seriously before his Nazis gained a lot of power and started WWII), seeks confrontation with the West and is determined to take action against the own population can be regarded of acting "rational". Of course they know what happens to their country if they should use or spread around nuclear arms ... but crazy regimes/dictators often don't care about the consequences for their population. About the "deterrence" argument (against alleged "enemies" from outside and inside the country): Well, that might be rather appropiate for the latter (inside) ... since everybody with some brain knows that the US can't afford another invasion after Iraq (illegitimate) & Afghanistan (legitimate). There's also the argument of "changing the balance of power in Middle East" (often used by @ Iranian Monitor in the past), what means that the current Iranian regime is seeking hegemony in the gulf region according to the motto "if you want to have a real say, you just need nukes".
That's surely our moral duty ... but the problem is that the Iranian opposition around Mousavi/Karoubi/Khatami has already been accused of being "influenced by Iran's enemies in order to destabilize the country". When knowing about the history of Iran with the West (especially USA & UK), it's no easy decision whether to openly support the reformists around Mousavi/Karoubi/Khatami ... since we might not do them a big favour in a certain aspect. Unfortunately, the Iranian population has to fight on its own for freedom & democracy (as being the case during the Shah era) ... but it seems that the current dictatorship has learned its lesson from the '79 events, being well-prepared to crack down even larger protests (with technical & military supply from the Chinese, Russians and some greedy Western companies). Bonne nuit.
Maybe the fact that they neighbor a nuclear state known for its multiple crimes against humanity carried out in recent decades and its arrogance and defiance of international law?? Just saying.
x infinity You mean the one repeatdly attacked by the proxy of iran? Who have time and again flaunted international law and conventions of war by using suicide bombers and attacking civilian targets while firing from apartment complexes? Keep on with that fantasy of yours.
It was a simple request, jackass. But by all means, continue dragging another thread into the the same mire you always do...
My strategy -- do nothing, other than make it clear that any use of nuclear wespons by Iran (or some terrorist group funded by Iran) will be met with massive disproportionate response. I do think it is time everyone drops the wishful thinking and accepts the fact that the Iranian regime is going nowhere right now. And in any event, who benefits from any fall in the regime — Mister Mousavi, who was prime minister during the worst of the executions, terrorist supporting and excess of the early years of the Revolution. I think the less the west does about Iran the better — let them sort their own problems out but frequently remind them that any use of nuclear weapoins will be followed by massively disproportionate retaliation.
Of course he's no "saint" (how mentioned before) ... but this doesn't mean that a person can't change its attitude towards certain things when getting older and wiser. In contrast to the fool Ahmadinejad, Mousavi is an intellectual & artist ... so he surely knows what's going the wrong way in his country. Btw: What terrorists did he allegedly support during his time as prime minister? Now just imagine that shocking scenario really happens. Do you think it would be ok to also punish all those Iranians who are opposing the current regime and are risking their lives in order to get rid of it?