So What About Iran?

[Peter666]

Why should America do Israel's dirty work?

[Doctaprofit]

You're dreaming if you think israel is the only country that benefits from a weak iran...

[ QUOTE ]
Why should America do Israel's dirty work?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you realize that Iran has also a very anti-American, anti-Western agenda, and has the agenda of trying to export its fundamental Islamic Revolution across the Middle East?

Why does Iran want the bomb, anyway? Here is a good article which offers insight, by the former editor of Iran's largest daily newspaper:

"DITHERING WON'T STOP IRAN'S NUKES
by Amir Taheri
New York Post
April 18, 2006

April 18, 2006 -- 'UNHELPFUL": So British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw described Iran's announcement that it has now joined "the nuclear club." Straw's French and German colleagues did no better. One saw Iran's provocative move as "regrettable the other preferred "disappointing." The European trio was echoing earlier comments from Washington that had chosen "unacceptable."

Well, as the late Raymond Aaron liked to say, when you say that something is "unacceptable," you have already accepted it as a reality. As for "unhelpful," that adjective is normally used in conjugal disputes when the aggrieved spouse wishes to say something without causing further aggravation.

Any thought that such moaning might make the mullahs shake in their sandals, let alone abandon their strategic quest for a nuclear surge capacity, would be naive to say the least. It's "so far, so good" for Tehran. The Islamic Republic has thumbed its nose at the "international community" at no cost to itself. Why should it stop when the going is so good?

Let us return to the central question in all this: Why does the Islamic Republic want a nuclear arsenal?

Anyone familiar with the history of proliferation would know that all of the seven confirmed nuclear powers decided to go nuclear in the context of conflict, actual or potential, with a clearly designated adversary. The United States developed nuclear weapons during World War II. Later, the Soviets developed their own bomb as a deterrent against the Americans. Britain and France, and later China, each sought an independent deterrent against the USSR. Then India, as a deterrent against China - and Pakistan as a deterrent against India.

No nation allocates huge resources to building a bomb and the means to deliver it without some real or perceived strategic imperative. So what is that imperative for Iran?

The shah's regime sought a nuclear surge capacity with an eye on making the Soviets deem it too risky to attack Iran. Sometime in the early '90s, the Islamic Republic decided to revive that program as a counter to the United States.

The Islamic Republic, as the embodiment of the Khomeinist revolution, had assumed a messianic mission to conquer the Middle East and, later, the whole Muslim world, in the name of its brand of Islam. By the mid '80s, Khomeinist groups were active in 30-plus Muslim countries, while the Islamic Republic was engaged in a brutal war with Iraq.

The leadership in Tehran realized that there was one power that would not allow it to "export revolution" and dominate the Middle East. That power was, and remains, the United States.

In 1986-87, it was U.S. intervention that prevented Iran from breaking the Arab front by attacking Kuwaiti and Saudi oil tankers. It was also partly thanks to U.S. intervention that the Khomeinists weren't allowed to seize control of Lebanon and launch a long, low-intensity war against Israel.

With the fall of the Taliban in Kabul and the Ba'ath in Iraq, the old balance of power in the region has been shattered. President Bush wants to create a new Middle East that is democratic and pro-West. In such a Middle East, there would be no place for a regime like the one now in place in Tehran. The Islamic Republic is determined to sabotage Bush's plan and, instead, create a new Middle East that is anti-American, Islamist and controlled by Tehran. These conflicting ambitions make war a theoretical, if not an immediate, inevitability.

The Khomeinist leadership believes that it could hope to win in any prolonged conventional conflict if only because U.S. public opinion, as the Iraq experience has shown, lacks patience and is unprepared to accept even low casualty rates. That leaves tactical nuclear weapons as the only way for the United States to break the will of the Islamic Republic in any war. Thus the mullahs' move to develop their own deterrent.

A United States that is unable to fight on the ground for any length of time and deterred from using nuclear weapons for fear of retaliation would, so the mullahs hope, do what it has often done: run away, leaving Iran to emerge as the regional superpower.

The Middle East is passing through the most decisive moment in is history since the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1918. The options are clear. One is to let the Khomeinist regime dominate the region and use it as the nucleus of an Islamic superpower which would then seek global domination. The other is to go for regime change in Tehran as a strategic goal. (A third option - creating an Irano-American co-dominium in the region - might not be acceptable to the Arabs and Turkey, let alone Israel.)

All three options are hard to contemplate, especially for the United States and its European allies - powers that wish to set the global agenda but are reluctant to fight for it. The problem is that by refusing to stand up against the Khomeinist regime now, the Americans and Europeans (and their allies in the Arab world) may later have to fight an even bigger and costlier war against a nuclear-armed foe.

Amir Taheri is the former executive editor of Kayhan, Iran's largest daily newspaper. He is a member of Benador Associates."

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/19455

Iran's gripes and threat don't only hinge around Israel, nor even around the Shah and prior U.S. policies, though such matters play a role. Iran also desperately wants and is determined to rule the Middle East under an Islamic fundamentalist-style umbrella, with its own leadership at the forefront. This is why, even if Israel were out of the picture entirely, Iran's regime under the mullahs would still be our sworn enemy.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

You mean like those biblical bastards that are sat in the white house now recieving missions from god?
Please if your going to mock someones belief at least make sure there is no double standards going on.
***********************************************
I'm an atheist so there is no double standard.


what a safer place it is without you.
******************************************
Perhaps you should take a history course.
Then you will learn the effects of appeasement and the effects of meeting aggression head on.

The ancient Romans understood human nature very well and a large part of their success was not taking **** from anyone and nipping problems in the bud. This meant using military force to keep small problems from becoming bigger problems.
This led to "Pax Romana". A long period of peace and prosperity for Rome.

A good thing wimps like you did not run ancient Greece or ancient Rome. Western civilization would died.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

Why? Why are you allowed nuclear weapons when you are the biggist one of the biggist threats alongside Iran to global peace?
**************************************
I wish I knew what your nationality is. Then we could undo WW2 treaty and reinstate the Nazis for ingrates like you. Then you would be begging the USA to save your ass.


Who made America or the god damn coalition for that matter the authority of the world.
************************************************
Because we use force against maniacs (e.g. Hitler and soon to be Iran) instead of appeasing them. This policy obviously works pretty well since the USA is a huge superpower. It worked well for ancient Rome as well.


PS - A friend of mine (She's American and is wonderful) once said to me the trouble with her country is that they think even places like Great Britain are the third world, and that nobody is interested in whats going on if its outside the US.
***************************
I've been to England for both work and vacation.
Your friend is a nitwit and does not speak for me nor the rest of America.

[Peter666]

With the end of the Soviet era, Iran and the US would not give a rat's butt about each other (with the exception of normal economic ties) if it was not for the alliance of the US with Israel. There would not have to be a war against terrorism if America stayed out of Middle East politics.

[Peter666]

How would Western nations benefit from a weak Iran if there was no alliance with Israel?

[Hoi Polloi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is there any way out of this impasse?

[/ QUOTE ]

Doubtful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bush's approval ratings mysteriously rise above 50% and generic GOP vs. Dem preference number goes over 55% then it will be all about diplomacy again.

If BushCo fears significant (read Dems get subpoena power) defeat at polls in 11/06, bombs will be raining down on Iran in October.

It's wag the dog time.

[ianlippert]

Isnt part of the reason the polls are so low because of the war in Iraq and the huge amount of money bush is spending? How will invading another country increase his approval rating?

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
Isnt part of the reason the polls are so low because of the war in Iraq and the huge amount of money bush is spending? How will invading another country increase his approval rating?

[/ QUOTE ]

his ratings are low because we are losing in Iraq, not because we are there. If we were kicking ass and taking names like he said we would it would be very different.

If we go to war against what peopl esee as a legit threat then his ratings may improve.

Of course he could be of the mindset that they cant get much worse.