Fair enough. Every country has political ambitions though, it must have been strategically advantageous to the Russians to provide the Iranians with them for some reason at some point though. Probably for Gas and Oil?? I seriously doubt they'd do it just out of spite.
has anyone actually thought that even tho people are looking at iran but this conflict could actually spread? poss thru the middle east and then onto say pakistan,india...etc? i could care less for the iranians, personally they posed a larger threat than iraq as they are more "extreme" and "fundimental" than the iraqis were ever were. Also i would say its wrong to say that the Asian community hate the Whites becoz of all this things going on. Its just the Islamic community needs to get off its high horse and sort its own religion out first before forcing it upon others. And yeah i have to agree with the others why the US would attack iran, natural resources.
I don’t think we will rite away; our military can barley handle fighting on two fronts like it is now. We physically do not have the man power to fight three at one time with the current structure of the force.
Nope, cold, hard cash. Iran has lots of hard currency and Russia has some pretty advanced SAM systems. The Tor M1 is broadly comparable to the Patriot system (IIRC), and their point defence systems are probably better than anything made in the US. Thye Russians have always taken air defense, both strategic and tactical, more seriously than the US and it shows in the final product. THis is a direct result of the Russioan expierience at the hands of the Luftwaffe in WW2 and also their natively defensive mindset. Getting back to Russia supplying them to Iran, it's a also a safe thing to do politically. SAMs are inherently defensive weapons, you can't blow up a city with one.
Provocative?!? The US has been pissing in the mouth of every nation for the last few decades (and then some). It has actually followed up threat with aggression. We could argue that by quite explicitly supporting Saddam Hussein (yes, that evil Iraqi dictator that eventually was ousted because he became to uppety, remember?) in the Iran-Iraq war, the US has been the aggressor all along. No wonder Iran has a few grudges. You need to understand that Middle Eastern culture is full of florid expressive language. Much bark, little bite. Expert US advisors should understand that. Anyone who is a bit familiar with Middle Eastern culture does. AS for not letting inspectors in: why should they? Try getting into Israel's nuclear facility, see how much co-operation you get there. Try getting into Guantanamo Bay... Double standards, alright. War is never a good answer. Before you think that Iran should be attacked, I suggest you have a strong cup of coffee and wake up to reality.
If I recall correctly, Isreal does not officially admit that they HAVE a nuclear program, much less posess weapons. We all know they do, but in paper. And unlike Iran, the US (and the UK too) are in material breach of the Non-proliferation treaty because they have not made efforts to dismantle their nuclear arsenals. EDIT: I have to wonder if Mohamed ElBadari (SP?), head of the IAEA, is getting tired of having his acency co-opted for ther political goals of the US.
I think the simple fact is that if Iran gets nuclear, then it turns into North Korea and can do whatever the hell it likes and the international community cannot control it. That's not what is wanted. I have to agree with ata that it's still the few that makes it look bad for the many.
You have to ask yourself what Iran would do with that power. Nuke Israel? Unlikely --it will get nuked right back. Invade Israel by conventional means? Iran has four routes into Israel: through Turkey and Syria, through Iraq and Syria, through Iraq and Jordan (or Lebanon), and through Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Three of these routes are foreclosed by US troops on the ground, and the fourth by the Turkish Army. And Turkey is too keen to get into the EU to play ball with Iran at the moment. Invade neighbouring countries? What's the point in pissing of their Muslim neighbours? (Anyway, the only Middle-Eastern country to have pulled that one was the one that had US support.) Exert more political control on the world stage? Seeing as it is the main energy supplier to the likes of China and Russia already, it has enough power to do so already. People need to start engaging their brain (please, dear Lord, just do it) and learn to take Iran's rethoric with a pinch of salt. How is it that we view anything that our politicians say with a modicum of cynicism or suspicion at least, but the hubristic rants of a Middle Eastern demagogue are taken literally? So, let's check the facts, shall we? Just as there was no evidence that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons, there is no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons (obviously the Bush administration is stupid enough to use the same trick twice, but obviously we are also stupid enough to fall for it twice). The "evidence" that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons consists of mere assertion by members of the Bush administration and, arguably, the neoconservative media. Iran says it is not pursuing nuclear weapons, and the IAEA inspectors have found no evidence of a weapons program. Iran is a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Under the treaty, signatories have the right to develop nuclear energy. All they are required to do is to make reports to the IAEA and keep their facilities open to inspection. Iran has complied with these requirements. Iran has felt threatened by the US for years, and as history has shown, with good reason. Have we conveniently forgotten that? (Who was that Saddam Hussein guy again? Right, he was the ruthless homicidal dictator that we supported so he could give Iran a hard time in the Iran-Iraq war.) Just like Iraq's WMD suddenly became a problem when the Bush administration got into power (it wasn't a big deal in the ten year interlude following the first Gulf War, apparently), suddenly Iran's nuclear programme is a big problem. However the view of many people in the IAEA is that this is a problem purely created by the US. Let's also consider the consequences of an Iran war. The Bush administration has placed Iraq in the hands of the majority Shia, who are allied with Iran, which is allied with the Hezbollah, the strongest military force in Lebanon, which is friendly to Hamas, the brand-spanking-new democratically elected Palestinian authority. What response might a US attack on Iran bring from the Shia population in Iraq? And considering that the US and Allied forces are already struggling to maintain a modicum of control over insurgents in Iraq, a country with a population of 5 million, how do you think they will manage a country four times the size with a population of 70 million? A concluding thought: Pakistan, a despotic and far less democratic country than Iran, home to Al-Queda and Osama Bin Laden (remember him? How's the search going, guys?), has nuclear weapons. The military dictatorship in Pakistan teeters on the edge of collapse every so often, and they can't even control large swathes of their own country. It has made it abundantly clear that it has no problem using nukes against India. What are we doing about that?
Have to say that if had one of the worlds biggest powers breathing down my neck and proclaiming me as evil. I'de be doing my hardest to build whatever weapons I could to defend myself. if as a country I have develop a weapon to strike back at my aggresers home (ICBM's) its going to hopefully make them think twice about attacks. Hey it works for North Korea
Technically it went both ways, and the USA supported both (which was rather dumb). As for India, its probably the administration's policy to "let the problem take care of itself".
Iran has not kept their facilities open to inspection though has it, I agree there is no direct evidence that Iran is developing weapons, but to say that they have complied with their obligation to keep their facilities open for inspection is over-egging the pudding somewhat I feel. The IAEI has this to say: Source: http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2006/ebsp2006n003.html#iran The American and western response has been a bit too aggressive and over zealous in its condemnation, granted, but to suggest (as you seem to) that the question marks over Irans nuclear program is one solely created by the US is, as I read it, not really backed up by the IAEA's statements over the matter. If they were in full compliance, would there still be uncertainty in the minds of the IAEA? The Pakistan problem is a big one, but the problem is, what can the west or anyone else actually do about it now? I struggle to think... One option is to accept that whilst whilst Pakistan's military regime is odious, its probably better for us that Musharraf remains in power rather than the much more militant parties who are so dominant in some areas - at least whilst Musharraf hangs on, the more hardline, militant Islamist parties aren't the ones in control of the nukes. Meanwhile, we lean on Musharraf as much as possible to get him to clamp down on the militants, engage in action to prevent his country being used as a haven for Al Qaeda - serves our interests okay, right? This is what we have been doing, pretty much, since 9/11. Another option is to take the view that we should not by aligning ourselves with an undemocratic regime with a poor human rights record, as a matter of principle. How then do we get Musharraf to tackle to the problem of militancy and terrorism in his own country, surely something thats in our national interests - lest Pakistan become another haven for Al Qaeda. And if he can't do it, what then - should we do it ourselves, and seek to replace him, and/or should we act covertly inside his country against the militants directly? Risking war with a nuclear armed state, and/or destabilising his already precarious hold on power, with the result that the next government could be dominated by the hardline Islamic parties who would be an even more worrying prospect than the existing regime, given that they have nuclear weapons. And if we didn't help Musharraf, would the hardline parties get in power anyway given time... I know the west's experience of siding with 'bad' regimes for as long as it serves our own interest has been a bad one (you're right to constantly cite Saddam, the Shah, the Mujahadeen as examples of this) , and its not a thing I think 'we' should be engaging in - but with regards to Pakistan, I struggle to think of alternative actions that are any better or don't risk things getting worse. Better the devil you know etc? As for Pakistan showing they are willing to use them against India, I'm not so sure myself - both nations have pulled back from the brink of nuclear war before. I think they both now know they have too much to lose. Pakistans proliferation was arguably only a result of India's - Pakistan was already in an inferior military position for a variety of reasons (geography precludes Pakistan from having much defence in depth for its major cities and military bases when compared to India for example, then theres the population and economic factors as well). For India to get nuclear weapons and Pakistan to not have them would surely cement Pakistans inferiority to its rival, and what Pakistani would really want that? Remember Pakistans nuclear tests were conducted in response to India's. Incidentally, I find the recent US agreement with India interesting - I foresee, long term, India being a stronger strategic ally for the US than Pakistan. Its a democracy for a start (the worlds biggest, so siding with India isn't as bad from a moral and ideological point of view), and economically will become the big power in the region along with China, so being friendly with it makes business sense to us. Cosying up to India keeps the pressure on Musharraf as well, so that he keeps on trying to combat the militancy in terrorism in his own country which threatens the west.
I don't think that anything is being done to Pakistan due to the US needing their help in finding Osama. So apparently we are halfly-allied with them, right? I don't know if the US is allied in any way with India, other than outsourcing all our jobs to them, but that's a different thread. So, why do we pick on Iran? Maybe it's because they openly acknowledge wanting to wipe the earth of one of our biggest allies (Israel). Maybe it's because they mean to cause harm and pain (or whatever the lunatic said) to the US if needed. I see neither Pakistan or India doing that. And neither of those countries could hurt the US homeland if they wanted to anyway. (As in nuclear.) I wouldn't put it past Iran to do so once they could. Honestly I think Nexxo is right. Why do we believe our politicans whole-heartedly during times like this, but when times are "normal" we wouldn't waste our time on them? So why would we need to believe some lunatic from Iran when he starts stating how big his wang is? He was on the short end of popularity when this started, and what can make anyone popular in a middle eastern country? Threatening the US, that's what. And aren't elections (if you'd call them that) coming up over there? (I really don't know; it's an honest question. US politicians always start flexing muscle when elections are close.) If so, then this may be all show, which I don't think that it is. Anyway, I voted for Bush twice; I supported him when all this started. But I will not support another invasion. (I honestly think something has gone wrong in his head. He's making some really unpopular moves lately.) With the stories of Iraq that my bro-n-law brought back (and thank you for your service, sir!) I don't think it's possible. Sure, we can bomb them into submission like we did with Iraq, twice, but a ground war is a completly different matter. And getting someone to help us won't be easy. You UK'ers seem pretty set against it, and you're our BIGGEST allie. My guess of the outcome: I honestly think it will come to the brink of war, if not moving slightly over that fine edge, but not to far from backing up. (Meaning a few shots fired, but never really engaging.) Maybe even threats of a small scale nuclear strike will appear every now and then. Then out of nowhere someone will come forward with some stellar "peace" plan that the two sides would rather agree on than actually fight. The west then lives in hesitant peace with a new super power. Not Iran, but Islam. Just my 2 cents...
My impression of the situation is that the more belligerent the US became, the more reluctant Iran became to have its facilities inspected. This is not unexpected: in Middle Eastern culture, face is an important concept. The president of Iran cannot be seen to meekly comply when bullied by Western nations (even if it has little to hide --it's a face thing). Paradoxically, the softly-softly approach would have gotten the IAEA much more co-operation. We saw this in Iraq also. The strongest arguments for WMD has always been that if Saddam had nothing to hide, why didn't he let the weapons inspectors just do their job? Well, because he had nothing to hide. As a ruthless powerful dictator he could not be seen to comply with US demands and to be exposed to the world (and his many adversaries) as the powerless, toothless lion he really was. Even now, while on trial, he is ranting at the judge as if he were admonishing a naughty child. It's all about face. Face is everything. It boggles me that US Middle East advisors do not seem to grasp this. Although my suspicion is that actually, they understand this very well, but that the current administration, comprising as it does mainly of white right-wing males, is too arrogant to consider another cultural point of view. yet ironically, they too are posturing for all it's worth. I doubt it. I totally agree with your extensive analysis of the situation. There is nothing we can do... But given that Pakistan's regime is wobbly at best and plenty of Islamic fundamentalists are waiting in the wings to take over the country, and those lovely nukes, at any time, I'd say that Iran, frankly, is the least of our problems.
No. Simple answer. Unless there is a radical shift in the Iranian or US regimes it won't happen. Iran is just a step too far given the USA's current foreign policy situation. There will be a lot of talk and bullish behaviour because of US sensitivities about the nuclear issue but I would eat one of my old sneakers live on webcam (with sauce) if this caused a war.
I think the main concern is that Iran, with its secret hidden underground nuclear facilities will pump out weapons-grade materials and hand it off to one of the terrorist groups they support. As for N. Korea... a war there is unthinkable because a complete invasion would be required, and that would be a "real" war as opposed to briskly overthrowing Iraq. But with Iran... I think that Nexxo is right and that at the moment it's all talk. But that is how it started with Iran. Bush making threats, Saddam making counter-threats, and the US invading th back up their threats. I think that this time around, Bush is going to let the UN take control of things for a bit. Russia is trying its best to negotiate a compromise but Iran seems reluctant to follow along. I understand the resistance to being coerced into building nuclear plants on foreign soil, but if it smooths things over and avoids war, so be it, Iran's president should get off his high horse and try to compromise a little. Admittingly it could be seen as a personal defeat and his pride won't let him make such a choice, but if it saves lives, then giving in to a choice like that shouldn't take so much effort. I understand the desire to prevent a potentially hostile country from acquiring nuclear weapons, but hopefully war can be avoided. Frankly, I'm sick of this nonsense.
