posted
Iraq basically told the US and Iran to not make Iraq a battleground.
I see Iran's actions the same way I see China's involvement with the Korean conflict AND Vietnam. The rationale is different, but the effect is the same.
I really do not like this development.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's actually not that big of a deal in realistic terms.
al-Maliki doesn't have near the power to make that kind of demand stick. Bush will say that if they don't want to make it a battleground, the onus is entirely on Iran for attacking US troops in Iraq when they are there at the request of the Iraqi government. And quite frankly I think he'll be right to say so, even if just from a PR standpoint.
The scary part of all of this is that the Iran/Iraq border doesn't matter anymore. It never mattered to Iran, they have and will continue to cross it as they see fit, but we've held it as something out of bounds for any large scale operation. I don't think that will be the case anymore.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So? Municipal elections != democracy on a national scale. The national government of Saudi Arabia has absolute power and is unelected. As I mentioned, the Saudis do not even claim to be Democratic.
Posts: 211 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the United States lacks the will (most important), the military supplies, and the military (and civilian) personnel necessary to make a sustained invasion of Iran have even the remotest chance of anything better than a substantial failure.
I think that a military attack, on the other hand, on targets within Iran, possibly with ground troops, is quite likely within the next five years.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it would be possible if instead of withdrawing American troops from Iraq the DoD decided to have them sent to Iran.
Posts: 883 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you're wrong. The military is having difficulties, shall we put it politely, accomplishing its mission in Iraq today-a lot of that is due, I believe, to inept upper management on the civilian side of things.
Iran is a much, much, much thornier problem on all levels. Terrain, politics, populations, everything in Iran is tougher than it would be in Iraq.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we could crush them if we invaded. We'd never be able to hold it though, which is why we'll never invade, and which is why we'll probably have targeted strikes on them some time in the near future if things continue as they are.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Iran actually does have a reasonable amount of democracy. They have an elected parliament (majles) and an elected president. They have universal suffrage. They don't elected the Council of Guardians or the Supreme Leader(Khameini, currently). Ahmadinejad was elected, like it or not, on an inflammatory populist platform after the failure of the reformist platform of Khatami (and to a lesser extent Rafsanjani before him). Partially, the failure of reforming movements can be attributed to poor economic management, etc. but also partially to the refusal of many Western states, particularly the US, to deal with Iran.
The US continues to accuse Iran of support for terrorism - with good reason considering ongoing Iranian support for Hizbollah and Hamas. This is one of the three key foreign policy dilemmas. The second is Iran's push for regional hegemony, including its meddling in Iraq. Third, and perhaps most importantly, Iran remains fundamentally hostile to Israel. No consideration of the Iran-US dynamic can have any meaning without the question of Israel occupying a central position. Ahmadenijad's desire to "wipe Israel off the map" escalated that aspect of the confrontation significantly. It also cast the nuclear program in a very, very different light than if Iran had taken the opposite approach and recognised Israel and opened up negotiations, even through a third party, at the same time as it accelerated its nuclear development. Of course, that was never going to happen but it's a worthwhile hypothetical to consider.
I am by no means apologising for the Iranian regime. It is brutal and oppressive in many ways. But it has NOT been a static, homogenesis and uncontested government since 1979. My feeling is that the West needs to engage Iran more rather than less. Tactical strikes with bunker busting bombs are unlikely to improve the situation in anything other than the very short term.
Posts: 7 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Ahmenidijad won't make it past the next election, and we'll have a new president by then as well.
I think there's a change coming in Iran/US relations, from the West at least. We still won't hesitate to threaten them with force, but that doesn't mean we can't offer them an olive branch here and there as well. We'll see where it gets us.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree. Ahmadenijad is in trouble domestically. His popularity is slipping as a result of failure to address domestic concerns - rising unemployment, a stagnant economy, etc.
Although I doubt he'll be re-elected, his current predicament actually makes him more dangerous precisely because he needs something big. Since 1979 foreign policy has been a domestically useful tool of state to quell dissatisfaction. I'd be concerned that he will seek to escalate any international confrontation in a gamble to galvanise domestic support. If that happens, the stick waved in response will need to be big, held firmly and very, very carefully waved or else we'll have a rather nasty conflict on our hands. *drops two cents in the jar*
Posts: 7 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't really see what he could do that would be big, that WOULDN'T be negatively spun.
Their economy is going downhill, and in a couple decades, if left unchecked, will collapse entirely. Their oil production is below the OPEC limits, which means they are losing billions of dollars a month because they can't get capacity up. And investment in their oil infrastructure is non existant. To make it worse, they aren't investing enough money to make sure they have an economic base when their oil does dry up, or in case prices plummet or demand drops.
As far as his political status, his party was slammed across the country in municipal and parliamentary eletions a few months ago, and opinion polls show they were votes AGAINST Ahemenidijad. In areas where his party was voted out, it was because they don't like his rhetoric and the way he is antagoizing the rest of the world, and they also believe they should deal with the West and drop the bomb, whereas his supporters think a bomb is the only safety they have.
It's complex, but I think Iran is in trouble domestically, and enough people realize it to get rid of him when the next elections come around. I think we'll see a reform, somewhat pro-West candidate win. Keeping in mind that pro-West is a relative term.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Agreed. But there is also the odd galvanisation of support that comes with military conflict. Ahmadinejad may decide that gambling on popular support re-coalescing behind him in the face of an immediate threat is worth it. That's what I meant by him being dangerous - he's getting close to a position where he has little left to lose. I'm not sure that I like that.
Posts: 7 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
Yep. I'm procrastinating from writing a paper so I figured I'd pop back on here. Speaking of Pop, he emailed me earlier and I should be getting my old account back (thanks, Pop!). How's stuff?
Posts: 7 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
LoL, you got me there. Are you the original EG?
Anyway, groovy to see you:) For our sake, I'm glad you're procrastinating I'm kinda watching the Super Bowl right now (love DVRing it so I can mute it for a few minutes and skip through some commercials:)), so I'm engrossed. I love rainy (American) football.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I'm kinda trying not to launch another browser window in order to watch the score of a game I don't care about (the Superbowl) except to the extent that in school tomorrow at least 10 Americans will care. And it would be good to feel cool like them for a few minutes. Heh.
Procrastination is all well and good but it's now 1am over here (London) and my class is getting closer, not further away (for some strange reason).
Posts: 7 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by EthicsReGradient: Iran actually does have a reasonable amount of democracy. They have an elected parliament (majles) and an elected president. They have universal suffrage. They don't elected the Council of Guardians or the Supreme Leader(Khameini, currently). Ahmadinejad was elected, like it or not, on an inflammatory populist platform after the failure of the reformist platform of Khatami (and to a lesser extent Rafsanjani before him). Partially, the failure of reforming movements can be attributed to poor economic management, etc. but also partially to the refusal of many Western states, particularly the US, to deal with Iran.
I am by no means apologising for the Iranian regime. It is brutal and oppressive in many ways. But it has NOT been a static, homogenesis and uncontested government since 1979. My feeling is that the West needs to engage Iran more rather than less. Tactical strikes with bunker busting bombs are unlikely to improve the situation in anything other than the very short term.
Two unelected SUPREME leaders since 1979. That's impressively democratic. And NOT static, homogeneous, or uncontested.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Supreme Leader's role was actually changed in the post-Khomeini modifications to the constitution to grant the President significant autonomy. The Supreme Leader provides the religious direction but does not run day-to-day policy (although he does have significant veto capacity). This is why you hear very little about Khameini and a hell of a lot about Ahmadenijad. The "Supreme" part refers to the religious authority in interpretation of Islamic law. In practical terms, Khameini's role in foreign and domestic policy has substantially reduced over the years and is certainly greatly less than Khomeini's before him.
Static, homogenous and uncontested are NOT word that fit well with the Iranian regime.
Besides, the point is not that Iran is entirely democratic but that does have substantive democracticc institutions and high political turn out. Compared to the West's Arab allies, Iran's record is actually impressive. Egypt is a dictatorship with a parliament that has almost no effective power. Saudi Arabia is a very oppressive monarchy with almost no democracy at all. Jordan is a monarchy with two rulers and a 'moderate' record in the region (they only dispossessed a few hundred thousand Palestinian refugees in the early 1970s). Saddam Hussein's Iraq - our best buddy in the 1980s - had no democracy worth speaking of.
Posts: 7 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suggest you read up on the Council of Guardians, the Assembly of Experts, and The Expediency Council. And also the fact that the Supreme Leader has total veto authority, direct control over the majority of high-level appointments, and influence over ALL appointments at every level.
Interesting tidbit: Ahmadinejhad is the first Iranian president not to be a cleric. I guess they (the Guardian Council) assumed that being a longtime member of the IRGC is just as good.
You're absolutely right about the high voting turnout, but when the legislature is subordinate to bodies of clergy, and the "chief executive" is subordinate to an individual clergyman, I don't see what good it does. The Islamic Republic of Iran is a theocratic democracy at best, and an Islamofascist government at worst.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to say I disagree with you over the amount of control that the bodies you mention have over foreign policy and, indeed, over specific domestic policies. Yes, the authority that you mention exists but post-revolutionary Iran has been characterised by fragmentation and factionalism more than it has by centralised control - appearances to the contrary.
By the way, I never said that it was not theocratic OR that it was an open and liberal democracy just that it is more democratic than people generally assume.
Posts: 2945 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Weekly World News has reported that Bush intends to invade Atlantis. I think they have a little more credibility than Vanity Fair.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unger's not exactly known for being completely impartial but it at least looks like an extensively researched article...
Posts: 2945 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's telling that that extensive research couldn't help him support his thesis. (Admittedly I only read a third into it. But I could only take so much venom.)
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We are waiting for the inevitable provocation from Iran, of course they will deny it but we will have the case iron clad. Iran will do what it does, The nuke will kill Jews or Americans, and we will begin our air campaign.
Posts: 231 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Counter Bean: We are waiting for the inevitable provocation from Iran, of course they will deny it but we will have the case iron clad.
One hopes they don't attack one of our ships in the Gulf of Persia.
--j_k, who has deja vu
Posts: 3617 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
They make fat targets, we have adequate missile defenses but so did the British in the Falkland's, a hundred grand for a missile crippling a billion dollar ship is no bargain.
It is my belief that the enriched uranium is there already. Common sense tells us that the Russian reaction to the North Koreans faulty test was too fast, too certain and too wrong. Iran has Russian made missile systems, and we know 'sample packs' of Russian refined Uranium made its way to the free markets in the south. Iran can use the centrifuge system to give the Russians 'Plausible Denial' when they use it to strike one of the three juicy targets, (Tel Aviv, Baghdad or our carrier group) though my bet is still Tel Aviv, using their friends in Lebanon to do the dirty work. I just hope that the sensor net is better then is commonly known.
But will we have the will to go to war if it is captured instead detonated? I think Lisa can tell us if we would be able to hold Israel back, I suspect the only way we could do so and fight the fight on our best terms is to guarantee Isreal a Coalition attack against Iran's possible nuclear caches. I would love to see the Israeli Air Force against the Iranian, tough anti aircraft, good planes, awesome pilots. Plus it would be nice if they bore the brunt of the first attack, (operation Jewish Shield)
Posts: 231 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have at least some confidence that US point defense systems could take down any major attack. We have a lot of systems in place, and they get better every year.
Also, you really think a bomb smuggled into Israel via Lebanon is the most likely scenario? Possible I guess. I think the attack will come from the air. They can't take the risk of getting caught like that. The only benefit they get is being able to deny it, but even that doesn't work. We can trace the origin of the Uranium, and we'll know where it came from. SOMEONE will pay.
Either a ballistic missile or from a bomber with fighter escorts. Keep in mind Iran does have a respectable air force. It's nothing like what Israel or Saudi Arabia have, but it's nothing to shake a stick at either. They could bloody the nose of most attackers, except the US.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If there is one thing that you can count on in Iranian diplomacy it is that they aheemmm.. Bluff (don't want to call an entire group liars after all) to launch a missile or escort a bomber would be out of character, deny deny deny. That is why I expect a smuggled device or one launched with a short range missile, one like our old Nike's I do not know what Iran is calling them...
[Removed unnecessary offensive comment. --PJ]
[ February 10, 2007, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: Papa Janitor ]
Posts: 231 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's exactly the type of inappropriate (and entirely pointless as it regards the discussion) comment that will have you removed again, Scott. Just stop.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's another assumption, but either way, I hope those in charge of our defense, and Israel's defense, aren't as narrowminded as you.
You're making vast, overreaching assumptions on Iranian practices with not much, well, NO evidence to back up your guesses.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is already death, so that is not an assumption, (over 100 US deaths caused by Iranian supplied bombs, thousands of missiles in Lebanon from Iran) as for my assumptions being tactical, well one of us does not know what the word means. (and I am pretty sure I do) My prognostication is based on three trends.
First ongoing and growing nuclear refinement in Iran, fueled and supported by Russia's long standing tradition of having leaders become insanely paranoid for some reason, and Iran's delusional view of their significance in the world.
Second both American and Israeli failure of Will to do what it will take to stop the threat short of a massive provocation, since we already have significant provocation in both Iraq and Lebanon.
Third the continuing failure of Moderate elements in Iran to stop their radicals simply because moderates by definition are not crazy enough to die for their truth.
Given these trends it seems inevitable that Iran will get the Nuke it wants. Either a touchy uranium bomb or a tricky plutonium bomb, in which case they face a use it, test it, or wave it like a flag option (tucking it up there sleave is not in character). If we are lucky they will build a dud and try to use it, giving us the evidence we need without the mass casualty event. If they are cautious they will test it and again we will have the information we need (if it works)
As for the delivery system, it is simply less risky and sneakier (more in character) to truck it close, we have missile defense systems all over the region and Iran is not likely to waste a precious nuke on an unreliable (missile systems) and uncertain (subject to military countermeasures) delivery.
So my predictions (not assumptions) are not vast narrow minded or even guesses, nor is there a lack of evidence, they are most probable outcomes given the current situation. Many others looking at the big picture see the same thing and I am far from the only one pointing out the direction we are headed, however the beanbag chair of world opinion cannot be moved by even a moderate sized kick. Will a big one do the job? I do not know, I am curious to find out.
Posts: 231 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:(tucking it up there sleave is not in character).
One wonders just how much you actually know about Iranian national character. To truly claim to know such things enough to say what is and isn't in character implies a substantial knowledge of Iranian cultures, peoples, history, politics, etc., since they aren't ruled by an autocrat such as Saddam Hussein.
I doubt very much whether you have a signifigant understanding of even one of the things on that list.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doubt away, we shall see, however since we have daily progress reports coming out of Iran and 'scientists' jumping up and down with the flask of 5% material and cheering the acievement (strong demonstration of character) one wonders how far you are willing to blind yourself to the obvious to find a flaw in what you disagree with.
Reguardless I am training my guys for worst case, that is our job. Your prejudices will result in events taking you by surprise, I guess that is your job...
Posts: 231 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You don't know what I agree and disagree with on this issue, Counter Bean-but it's amusing to read you say you do Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
For those who will no doubt point out that Iran is filled with wonderful people who just want to live in peace and be westernized etc, I am with you, I know they are a decent beautiful people. However for the purposes of National Character they are null bobs, they are not driving the runaway truck and I do not think they will steal the wheel in time.
We could unite with an internal force in Iran, but how would that be different from preemptive war to our liberals? They would see it as just another mask for imperialism. So what can you do?
Posts: 231 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: You don't know what I agree and disagree with on this issue, Counter Bean-but it's amusing to read you say you do
It is strange on list where your only presence is your opinion, to have pride in not articulating it well enough that it is known.
Posts: 231 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is strange on list where your only presence is your opinion, to have pride in not articulating it well enough that it is known.
That would indeed be strange, if I had pride in not articulating it well enough. It's not as though I've tried and failed to state my position well, Counter Bean-I haven't stated it at all.
Which, you know, might have something to do with my stating that you don't know what I think and agree with on this issue. Just maybe.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
of course you have wasted two posts not stating your opinion while, pointing out that you have not done so. Great tactics, creates a real 'Fog of Opinion' to rattle around in.
Posts: 231 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, a clever tactic since I'm concerned about having lots of wiggle room on this issue to rattle around in.
The funny part about your claim is that it would never even have become an issue had you not claimed you knew my intentions and opinions, when clearly you did not.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find the notion that Iran's first act with nuclear capabilities would be to smuggle a bomb into Israel (presumably through Hizbollah or similar clients?), across a heavily guarded, short border and then detonate a single bomb in Tel Aviv to be very, very unlikely.
I'm reasonably sure that Ahmadenijad is serious about wanting to wipe Israel off the map. However, I'm far more certain that what Iran wants most is to establish itself as the dominant regional power in the Middle East. Doing so certainly doesn't involve a convoluted plot. If things progress far enough, Iran will develop weapons grade uranium (it's a long way from that now - probably a few years before it can produce enough), develop the required technology to detonate a bomb and carry out test(s). It may conduct tests at the last possible minute and will do so in an underground facility. I would expect that delivery systems will have been developed / obtained and that Iran will arm surface-to-surface or air-to-surface missiles with nuclear warheads before carrying out tests. If the test is a success, Iran will immediately be placed as a nuclear power with delivery capabilities of some description.
This isn't about Iran blowing up a bomb - its about Iran becoming a nuclear power and asserting its hegemony over the Middle East.
Posts: 2945 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
I'm kinda watching the Super Bowl right now (love DVRing it so I can mute it for a few minutes and skip through some commercials:)), so I'm engrossed. I love rainy (American) football.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
