Iran, the new (or old) Iraq ?

[bluestar]

The macabre dance of naming Iran the new threat, and a threat to be extinguished ASAP is in full gear now. Its as if the Iraqi debacle does not exist. Its as if we have not seen this dance before. Its as if we are stuck in some deja vu "groundhog day" all over again.

The pundits on FOX News are foaming at the mouth already about Iran. I watched Glenn Beck on CNN this past weekend, and his Iran 101 was pure hilarious. But he has an audience, and he is playing to it.

Just this past week, Peter Hoekstra, the House Intel Chair launched one of the first and most important salvo against the Intel agencies, claiming they are not providing enough info on Iran's nuclear activities, in a new report titled: "Recognizing Iran as a Strategic Threat: An Intelligence Challenge for the United States." What a load of crapola they are trying to sell us again.

Every Intel in the world... not a single one... are unanimous in claiming that Iran is NOT close to nuclear warhead in 5 years. So why the hurry ? The PNAC reshaping of the Middle East remain alive despite its debacle in its Iraqi adventure. And to imagine that we'd take on Iran at a time we are bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq, neighbors to Iran.... Why now ??? Why ?????

But maybe a peek into the past is necessary to put this in perspective...

"But back in 1976 - with Gerald Ford president, Cheney his chief of staff, Donald Rumsfeld secretary of defense, and Henry Kissinger national security adviser - the Ford administration bought the Shah's argument that Iran needed a nuclear program to meet its future energy requirements.

They persuaded the hesitant president to offer Iran a deal that would have meant at least $6.4 billion for US corporations like Westinghouse and General Electric, had not the Shah been unceremoniously ousted three years later. The offer included a reprocessing facility for a complete nuclear fuels cycle - essentially the same capability that the US, Israel, and other countries now insist Iran cannot be allowed to acquire. Cheney must have forgotten all this, when he noted early last year that the Iranians are "already sitting on an awful lot of oil and gas. Nobody can figure why they need nuclear as well to generate energy." - Ray McGovern, former CIA Analyst. Details found here... http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/082506R.shtml

The real question is whether the US public will buy this crapola and permit these neocons in the Bush govt to send our men and women to attack Iran and begin another ill-fated and disasterous meddling in the Middle East, all in the guise of a so-called "Freedom Agenda" or is it combating terrorism.... or is it reshaping the Middle East... difficult to know what the objectives are cos they are constantly shifting like the wind.

[mmarshall]

The real problem in Iran was the ousting of the Shah, despite the fact that he certainly did not run a democratic regime as we know it. He at least respected both the U.S. and Israel. His overthrow ( which we could have done a LOT more to prevent ) was the beginning of a huge disaster in the entire region. The Ayatollah Khomeini succesfully used propaganda to bolster his cause. The whole buisness of anti-Americanism and terrorism in the region started with the grabbing of the American Embassy hostages in Tehran in 1979...( although some of the Anti-Americanism was replaced by anti-Sovietism after its invasion of Afghanistan )......and the region has never been the same since.
The ineptness of ther Carter Administration at the time, and the helpless way they handled the situation did not help matters any. But Reagan, in 1983, unfortunately did not do much better, despite tough talk, when he sent the Marines into what was literally an explosive situation in Beirut without protecting the compound against attacks like the British and French did.

[DASHOCKER]

Iran is not a threat to the U.S or anyone. Weapons of Mass destruction part deux Nuclear energy is the future. What is wrong with another country producing the means to support nuclear energy?

[mmarshall]

Originally Posted by DASHOCKER

Iran is not a threat to the U.S or anyone.

Tell that to the Israelis that were getting pounded daily by Iranian-supplied Hezbollah rockets. That is why the current cease-fire is not a REAL peace.....all it does is prolong the next inevitable round of violence in the region. That violence will continue off and on until Hezbollah is no longer a factor in the region.

[DASHOCKER]

Originally Posted by mmarshall

Tell that to the Israelis that were getting pounded daily by Iranian-supplied Hezbollah rockets. That is why the current cease-fire is not a REAL peace.....all it does is prolong the next inevitable round of violence in the region. That violence will continue off and on until Hezbollah is no longer a factor in the region.

Had no idea those rockets had nuclear warheads Israel was not getting pounded as much as Lebanon. Iran needs a new source of energy. What is wrong with nuclear energy? How many troops would Israel send in to fight Iran if Bush goes in? Will it be the same amount that is in Iraq?

[Lil4X]

Originally Posted by DASHOCKER

Nuclear energy is the future. What is wrong with another country producing the means to support nuclear energy?

Iran sits astride some of the largest oil and gas fields on earth. With generations of reserves under their soil, any talk of their investment in incredibly costly nuclear technology for "power generation" is extremely suspect.

With petroleum products practically flowing out of their ears, Iran has no immediate need for alternative sources of energy. Obviously with plenty of domestic oil and gas for the foreseeable future, not to mention sufficient production to support an enormous and extremely lucrative export market, spending vast sums on nuclear power at this point makes no economic sense. The real reason for Iran’s rush to “nuclear power” is focused on the “power”.

The only logical application for nuclear power in Iran is to whip the street mobs into a fury. It plays well on the street - local peasants feel empowered by their glorious leader when they become "nuclear powers" just like the big boys. By on one hand threatening the US and Israel, and pressing hard to develop nuclear "power", President Ahmadinejad plays a role (like that of Kim Jong Il) - that of a comic-opera dictator - EXCEPT that with nuclear arms they become credible threats and could become major players in world politics. Both are using the nuclear option to shore up their image, if not their actual tactical capability.

Unfortunately, both nations have, or soon will have the capability of producing a crude nuclear weapon. That makes them dangerous. Whether the nations actually possess a nuclear industry capable of producing a weapon is really academic. The economic situation in Pakistan and the states of the former Soviet Union both having proven nuclear capabilities, makes the sale of weapons, key components, or technology a distinct alternative for a petty tyrant seeking a leading role on the world stage. Iran has deep pockets, and when it comes to a "make or buy" decision, they could easily take the easier path.

From the ‘50’s, we supported the Shah, not because he was a great statesman or a proponent of democracy - he was a political strongman. He was a generalissimo maintained in power on the Peacock Throne by a secret police organization and ruthless "justice" for his enemies, real or imagined. Like others of his ilk, we supported him because he was useful to us. His nation bordered the Soviet Union and provided extremely valuable bases and clandestine surveillance behind the Iron Curtain. He was a key part of our Cold War strategy. In return, he DID westernize his nation, made education a priority, and broke the mold of the traditional monarchy.

Nations ruled by a personality or a cultic figure go into free-fall, often swinging to the opposite side when that national symbol dies or is ousted from office. Long term support of such figures is dangerous, potentially putting us on the wrong side following a coup or a state funeral. That's one reason you don't see us saying much publicly about Ahmadinejad, Kim, Castro, Chavez, or their governments. Sometimes it's better to check than raise.

[DASHOCKER]

Originally Posted by Lil4X

Iran sits astride some of the largest oil and gas fields on earth. With generations of reserves under their soil, any talk of their investment in incredibly costly nuclear technology for "power generation" is extremely suspect.

With petroleum products practically flowing out of their ears, Iran has no immediate need for alternative sources of energy. Obviously with plenty of domestic oil and gas for the foreseeable future, not to mention sufficient production to support an enormous and extremely lucrative export market, spending vast sums on nuclear power at this point makes no economic sense. The real reason for Iran’s rush to “nuclear power” is focused on the “power”.

The only logical application for nuclear power in Iran is to whip the street mobs into a fury. It plays well on the street - local peasants feel empowered by their glorious leader when they become "nuclear powers" just like the big boys. By on one hand threatening the US and Israel, and pressing hard to develop nuclear "power", President Ahmadinejad plays a role (like that of Kim Jong Il) - that of a comic-opera dictator - EXCEPT that with nuclear arms they become credible threats and could become major players in world politics. Both are using the nuclear option to shore up their image, if not their actual tactical capability.

Unfortunately, both nations have, or soon will have the capability of producing a crude nuclear weapon. That makes them dangerous. Whether the nations actually possess a nuclear industry capable of producing a weapon is really academic. The economic situation in Pakistan and the states of the former Soviet Union both having proven nuclear capabilities, makes the sale of weapons, key components, or technology a distinct alternative for a petty tyrant seeking a leading role on the world stage. Iran has deep pockets, and when it comes to a "make or buy" decision, they could easily take the easier path.

From the ‘50’s, we supported the Shah, not because he was a great statesman or a proponent of democracy - he was a political strongman. He was a generalissimo maintained in power on the Peacock Throne by a secret police organization and ruthless "justice" for his enemies, real or imagined. Like others of his ilk, we supported him because he was useful to us. His nation bordered the Soviet Union and provided extremely valuable bases and clandestine surveillance behind the Iron Curtain. He was a key part of our Cold War strategy. In return, he DID westernize his nation, made education a priority, and broke the mold of the traditional monarchy.

Nations ruled by a personality or a cultic figure go into free-fall, often swinging to the opposite side when that national symbol dies or is ousted from office. Long term support of such figures is dangerous, potentially putting us on the wrong side following a coup or a state funeral. That's one reason you don't see us saying much publicly about Ahmadinejad, Kim, Castro, Chavez, or their governments. Sometimes it's better to check than raise.

The US, is among the top global oil producers and operates over 100 nuclear power stations. Russia sits on the world's largest gas reserves and is the second largest oil exporter, yet is utilizing nuclear energy. There are more that 400 reactors in 31 countries around the world. So what if Iran wants nuclear energy. Why should the U.S hinder them? Is it because Israel feels threatened?

[bluestar]

Originally Posted by DASHOCKER

The US, is among the top global oil producers and operates over 100 nuclear power stations. Russia sits on the world's largest gas reserves and is the second largest oil exporter, yet is utilizing nuclear energy. There are more that 400 reactors in 31 countries around the world. So what if Iran wants nuclear energy. Why should the U.S hinder them? Is it because Israel feels threatened?

Excellent points, Dash.... The argument of Iran having oil and not needing nuclear power is not true. Rather, the fact that Iran with nuclear power is a threat to Israel and our geopolitical interests in that part of the world. Trouble is, that is potentially TRUE. What is troubling is that we lack the capacity to be a honest broker for diplomacy and for peace, since we are seen, rightly or wrongly, to be supporting one side against the other.

So what do we do now ?

I'd like to see a change of policy within our Federal Government as it approaches the Middle East. Militarism will NOT win the war on terrorism, especially state-sponsored like Iran does (Hezbollah, Hamas, etc).. So we need real dialog, we need real diplomacy (not one with a gun pointing in anyone's direction), and certainly we do not need diplomacy based on fear. This is not about weakness.... Strength is not how many guns you have and can use, strength is when your opponent respects you for what you have, not for what you threaten them with. We really need to turn away from wanting to bomb everyone simply bcos we can ! And expecting them to bow to us as masters of their domain.

Iran is not a country that we can simply attack as we did Iraq. They sit on a lot of oil, have lots of armaments they can deploy against their enemies (short of nuclear attack), can create a huge havoc in the Strait of Homuz, desrupting shipment of oil out of the Gulf. This will have oil trading at $100 in a hurry....

Now ask yourself this: the Iraqi debacle has NOT lowered oil prices, rather increased it, to the delight of the very powerful oil industry here in the US. Would an attack on oil-rich Iran not further enrich these oil barrons even more when oil trades for $100-$150/barrell ? I am betting these are the real motivations behind our Iranian war dance... Its purely economic and greed. Eisenhower warned us about the military-industry complex.... Today, its the oil industry lobby who are the drivers of our economic policy. And you have at the helm of the Bush govt, oil-based barrons... from Bush on downwards... We could have peeked at their plans had the Supreme Court (Antonin Scalia, to be exact) permitted the public to see who sat at the table with VP Cheney in the drawing of the Bush Energy Policy. I suspect that meeting has a lot to do with what we are doing/planning to do in the Middle East today.

Get ready for a war with Iran by Summer of 2008 at the latest. And potentially a military draft by then as well... It is inevitable as long as these cabal of people are still running our government.

[mmarshall]

Originally Posted by bluestar

.

Iran is not a country that we can simply attack as we did Iraq. They sit on a lot of oil, have lots of armaments they can deploy against their enemies (short of nuclear attack), can create a huge havoc in the Strait of Homuz, desrupting shipment of oil out of the Gulf. This will have oil trading at $100 in a hurry....

.

Strait of Hormuz? We fought a one-day war with their toy navy back in 1987, during the Reagan years, and wiped out practically their entire supply of gunboats in one afternoon.

[bluestar]

Originally Posted by mmarshall

Strait of Hormuz? We fought a one-day war with their toy navy back in 1987, during the Reagan years, and wiped out practically their entire supply of gunboats in one afternoon.

Oh really !!! 1987 right Which war was this ? Besides, this is 2006 not 1987 ! You obviously are amongst the few right-wingers who think *might-is-right*, and only bombing Iran would put an end to their nuclear ambitions. The little Hezbollah showed the mighty IDF what it can do with almost nothing more than anti-tank missiles, and mostly harmless Katyusha rockets... Don't mess with Iran, they are no Iraq... Ask any govt intel in the world about Iran's capabilities (what they know about), and they'd tell you its not a cake walk attacking Iran today.

Tell me: in what way does Iran constitute a threat to the UNITED STATES ?

[mmarshall]

Originally Posted by bluestar

Oh really !!! 1987 right Which war was this ?

Yes...really....though I was off a couple of months. It was April 1988.

It was called Operation Praying Mantis.
http://www.answers.com/topic/operation-praying-mantis
Though I don't know your age, you probably are not old enough to remember it. I remember it well.
It was a brief but significant one-day naval war in retaliation for Iran having fired on our warships escorting Gulf tankers and an Iranian mine hitting the Samuel B. Roberts. We lost one helicopter gunship...they lost much of their surface gunboat fleet.

The Iranians did not fire on us any more after that.

However, we were not entirely without fault either...although it was an accident. The U.S.S. Vincennes accidently hit an Iranian airliner with an Aegeis missile, mistakenly thinking it was an Iranian F-14 attacking the ship. ( We paid reparatrions for that mistake, on President Reagan's personal orders )

[SC400DAVE]

Originally Posted by DASHOCKER

The US, is among the top global oil producers and operates over 100 nuclear power stations. Russia sits on the world's largest gas reserves and is the second largest oil exporter, yet is utilizing nuclear energy. There are more that 400 reactors in 31 countries around the world. So what if Iran wants nuclear energy. Why should the U.S hinder them? Is it because Israel feels threatened?

1.We will see who feels threatened when a nuke goes off in New York. An Iranian supplied nuke!

2. Israel does not "feel" threatened, they where threatened by the Islamic fascist running Iran.

[AJ]

Originally Posted by SC400DAVE

1.We will see who feels threatened when a nuke goes off in New York. An Iranian supplied nuke!

I've asked before,but im really curious how do you know the future?!

EDIT:

fascist running Iran

why do you call him a fascist ? whats your definition of fascism ?

[bluestar]

Originally Posted by AJ

I've asked before,but im really curious how do you know the future?!

EDIT:


why do you call him a fascist ? whats your definition of fascism ?

Its called FEAR MONGERING ! And that's all the GOP has left to offer Americans - FEAR ! This is the last resort of cowards... Fostering fear among the populace... The GOP cannot claim a successful economic, fiscal, health, environmental, education, energy, transportation, homeland security, and especially good governance, so what's left ?

And fascism is by its pure definition, a mixture of politics with corporatists.... Can Ahmedinajan be really a fascist as defined ? At worst, he may be an Islamic theocrat, or bigot, certainly not fascist.... But you don't expect the GOP to tell the truth on this. Its always best to put the worst label on your enemy, so as to justify whatever nefarious act you'd like to carry out.

Afterall, telling Americans we are going to Iran to fight fascism reminds all of us of Hitler, and we'd support taking out another Hitler won't we ? But telling Americans the truth that we will attack Iran because they have oil, and putting this resource under US control will increase the wealth of the oil barrons, and undermine our real target - CHINA. That's not sexy, is it ? Truth is not sexy, so why bother telling the American public the simple truth !

Unfortunately, the world will NOT support any attack on Iran, and neither will Russia and China. The real question will be what would these superpowers do in the event we attack Iran ? Sit by and watch their investments go down the drain ? Guess we'll see, won't we ?

[SC400DAVE]

And we close yet another episode of the twilight zone.