Iran Rattles Scimitar Back at U.S.

DrunkenSleipnir wrote:

I would argue that this tool is a far greater advantage for both nations then any potential war gains.

You're ignoring the potential for miscalculation and the need to "call the other guy's bluff" and "maintain our standing" that's inherent in saber rattling. Saddam had ZERO advantage in fighting the U.S. twice. None. But he found himself in a position where he could no longer step back from the edge without humiliation, and he assumed that the U.S. had zero interest in coming in and taking over his country. And yet here we are.

Here's an article that presents some of the reasons why Bush would go to war ...

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f...

Yes I know it's Vanity Fair but it does have alot of the information I've read in other places all in one article. There are many other factors that play into this and I'll see if I can find some other useful links.

DrunkenSleipnir wrote:

On top of that, Iran has made clear that they primarily want engagement, in the same way North Korea does. It's been US policy to deny it, and so they get louder and louder. In the same way Iran is key to regional disputes and Middle Eastern trade, US engagement is key to better Iranian access to Western markets. A war would not help either country acheive its goals (in fact, it would greatly hinder them), and so I can't possibly image a war happening. This is, of course, opinion, but I think it's based in both present information and historical trends.

I agree. While I can see the reasoning behind a potential Iran/US War, I think what you've pointed out here is far, far more likely. However, Funkenpants has pointed out the flaw in this policy: Shouting threats at the top of your lungs only works for so long before you become the boy who cried wolf. Eventually, you have to make good on what you say, or else nobody will believe you and you'll lose your bargaining power.

There's also the aspect that our policy to Iran is not wholly dependent on our own and the Iranians interests, but includes Israeli interests as well. There's also an emotional component that goes right back to the hostage crisis and the Ayatolla. I don't see it as one of those countries where the U.S. calculates its diplomacy in purely rational, interest-based terms.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/...

And so the evidence to justify war with Iran begins to come in.

Yes I realize that Gates also says we have no plans to attack Iran, but..this is starting to smell funny.

Maybe if the Bush administration said they will present this to U.N. security council for possible sanctions I could see it as a more diplomatic effort. Until then war with Iran does seem like it may be coming with how the Bush administration is conducting itself.

Man, I'm good.

Dr.Ghastly wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/...

And so the evidence to justify war with Iran begins to come in.

I like how Iran is supplying the Sunni insurgency with this stuff. We are bringing them together ... too bad it doesn't make much sense in the real world.

PissedYeti wrote:

I like how Iran is supplying the Sunni insurgency with this stuff. We are bringing them together ... too bad it doesn't make much sense in the real world.

I don't think they are. That's part of the white house's plan to blend the two together. Pretending for convenience sake that there's no difference between shiite militias trained by Iranians and Sunni insurgents fighting the central government.

It would surprise me if the Iranians wouldn't be working with the shiite militias, but it seems more likely to me that that's because they favor shiites in a civil war than it is a desire to strike at U.S. forces.

Can our economy really handle another war? I mean the Dollar can't deify gravity forever and its already starting to feel fairly paperweight-ish.

Part of selling the Iraq War in the first place was how convinced the Bush administration was that once we took out Hussein, the Iraqis would be in the streets cheering our Democracy Parade (tm) and that things would quickly settle down since they'd be so happy to have this horrible/crazy/genocidal dictator gone. Metaphorically, just a little head-transplant and the body will just keep on tickin'.

Who the hell do we kill in Iran, and at what point would their populace be in the streets cheering? As much as I think Bush and Co. are dangerous, naive, war-mongering Ideologues...I just don't see it. I mean, from their perspective, the Iraq War was supposed to have a nice "Mission Accomplished" and "Hail the Conquering Hero" moment, and then voila!, Iraqi Democracy. What's the end point for attacking Iran? When their country is a smoke-filled crater?

I think the point that the Neoconpoops would like to make is that the new conflict in the Middle East is starting to look like a classic geopolitical one. Iran stands to gain tremendously from our idiocy and stemming off Persian power seems to be the imperative among those policy planners. To them, the endpoint isn't necessarily our entering Tehran as welcomed liberators, but rather the (according to them) the very acceptable outcome of a state of constant war with Iran and the resultant consequences.

In many ways, this outcome is far more achievable than the "winning hearts and minds" in Iraq. All we need to accomplish the goal of diminishing Iranian influence is a genocidal bombing campaign, the targetting of large population centers, and the very gratifying butchery of an entire country filled with non-Christians.

Seen in that light and through the eyes of this executive, this policy seems very likely.

Actually I think we stand to gain more by not invading Iran, from some things I have heard its about to collapse under its own weight (think 80s soviet union), and the worst thing we could do is start a war to prop it up both internally (people will put up with a lot more when being attacked by outsiders) and externally (this might get them some help from other ME countries, who would like the US out of there (and Isreal with us)).
GW may not be there brightest bulb on the tree (or at least he acts that way, it may be a bit of a put on), but he has those around him that are, and he listens to them, which is what I care about more.

Iran has been a threat since the revolution. Hopefully there will be a push towards normalizing relations with Iran, which seemed to have a chance before Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was, um, "elected".

I disagree that the folks Bush has around him are particularly bright. They are the same neoconpoops that lied about intelligence to bring us the Iraq war debacle. Even the lowest of wattage folks could tell you a LONG time before the war that it would have disasterous consequences. These are largely the same folks driving policy today.

If they were that efficient at lying to themselves before, what makes you think they aren't going to do so again. Think about it as going all-in with a 2-7 off suit in the hopes of scaring your opponent off the obvious overpair. They've got a whole lot of nothing, but they are convinced they can pull it off.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...

I have no inside sources that allow me to know for certain what is going on but articles like this are becoming more frequent and specific. And for those that don't think Bush would go that far then I suggest you read some of the Neocons policy papers. I'm not saying you are wrong but the people surrounding Bush (neocons) have a hard on for this and Bush just dissed everyone including the Iraqi Study Group in favor of these clowns on Iraq. They want this in a bad way ...

Ah Iran...yet another reason Jimmy Carter is the worst President in the 20th century.

The reality is that weighing the risks and benefits of a military confrontation with Iran against the risks and benefits of avoiding one will be excruciatingly difficult. If we are smart, we would push that decision squarely onto Iran. We should be sending a clear message that we will not allow Iran to compromise our national security through uncontrolled nuclear proliferation. Our policy should be to increase the risks of confrontation to a point that they are prohibitive to Iran and then attempt to engage diplomatically.

But if they continue, we must be willing to follow through in preventing them from becoming nuclear.

Ah Iran...yet another reason Jimmy Carter is the worst President in the 20th century.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to blame Eisenhower, who instigated the coup against a democratic Iran? Carter just had to deal (and poorly, I admit) with the fallout.

Minase wrote:
Ah Iran...yet another reason Jimmy Carter is the worst President in the 20th century.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to blame Eisenhower, who instigated the coup against a democratic Iran? Carter just had to deal (and poorly, I admit) with the fallout.

I still like that Iran immediately buckled when Reagen got elected.

Iran has the right, by treaty, to refine uranium for civilian nuclear power. The treaty contains the wording "inalienable right", which is about as strong as it gets. We signed that treaty.

We have no real evidence that they're trying for weapons, and they're at least 10 years away from being able to refine uranium to any dangerous degree. The "refining" they've done already is just propaganda stuff... it's so trivial as to be worthless. I don't remember the exact percentages, but they did something like refine the natural 1% concentration of u-235 (or whatever it actually is) to like 3%. It's refining, sure, but in name only. They have a long, long way to go.

Because we're so committed to Iraq, we need to realize: we can't prevent Iran from getting the bomb through military means. We just can't. We don't have the boots to even hold Iraq, much less an entire separate, far more prosperous country. All we can do is bomb them, and unless we use nukes ourselves, we can't take out any facilities they have.

Part of the NPT treaty (that we signed) is that we won't use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear powers. The only way we can prevent their nuclear program, which we've said in that same treaty is an inalienable right, is to break that promise. The blowback from using nuclear weapons a second time would be immense. We are currently dependent on the goodwill of strangers to finance our massive deficit and debt load. If we piss off our creditors enough that they don't want to deal with us anymore or hold dollars, it's game over.

With conventional weapons, all we can do is f*ck up their economy, perhaps slowing their program a bit. But they can f*ck us far worse simply by cutting the flow of oil by a third or half. They'll still be fine: they'll be fat and happy selling half as much oil at five times the price. But we won't.

The only sane option we have is negotiation. They know that. I'm not sure if we do.

Malor wrote:

The only sane option we have is negotiation. They know that. I'm not sure if we do.

Does that mean advantage USA? (Hey, it worked that way under MAD in the Cold War!)

Malor wrote:

We have no real evidence that they're trying for weapons,

My God, man...what do you call all of their president's statements to that effect?

Fedaykin98 wrote:
Malor wrote:

We have no real evidence that they're trying for weapons,

My God, man...what do you call all of their president's statements to that effect?

A big fat bluff, in my estimation. I think Malor's got it right. We signed the NPT, and thus far, Iran doesn't have enough uranium to put together a proper nuclear program. They (meaning Ahmenabababooey and the Ayatollah) are trying to get us to react in such a way that they can act the martyr and say "The big bad White Devil of the USA is picking on us poor Muslim folks again!", and incite further hatred against us.

However, if they're smart, and it's never a good idea to assume otherwise, they realize the limits of the NPT as well. If they really do go nuclear, and try to rattle their sabers at us, they have to realize that, at that point, they're a fair target, should they push it far enough. Our best bet is to watch them, to make sure they don't start any real shenanigans, but to otherwise treat their inflammatory remarks as just that: inflammatory remarks, nothing more.

I still like that Iran immediately buckled when Reagen got elected.

Buckled? You need to read up on Iran-Contra. They were bought. Despite Johnny's assertions, after Nixon, Reagan was perhaps the worst-advised President we've had this century. And, funny thing, his tenure was the last time we had the old Nixon/Ford crew in power, and saw the rise of the Neocons. Many of the same people who pushed Bush into Iraq escaped prison by the skin of their Congressional testimony in the 80's, and his admitting to violating the law on television was his only way out of impeachment (yes, read up on it). His genius, however, was in turning failures into successes, and he did that in a bipartisan way. He was indeed the Great Communicator, but he was a very flawed President.

Let's start with the part that is the most controversial. A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not. As the Tower Board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages. This runs counter to my own beliefs, to administration policy, and the original strategy we had in mind. There are reasons why it happened, but no excuses. It was a mistake. I undertook the original Iran initiative in order to develop relations with those who might assume leadership in a post-Khomeini government.

It's clear from the Board's report, however, that I let my personal concern for the hostages spill over into the geopolitical strategy of reaching out to Iran. I asked so many questions about the hostages' welfare that I didn't ask enough about the specifics of the total Iran plan.

Ronald Reagan, in an address to the nation, March 4th, 1987. Bolding is mine.

Ronald Reagan won the election in large part because of his deal with the hostage-takers, which let him hammer Carter in the certain knowledge that the hostages would not be released before the election.

Robear, those were the Hezbollah hostages that were freed along with the Iran-Contra Affair, not the Iranian hostages.

Robear wrote:
I still like that Iran immediately buckled when Reagen got elected.

Buckled? You need to read up on Iran-Contra. They were bought. Despite Johnny's assertions, after Nixon, Reagan was perhaps the worst-advised President we've had this century. And, funny thing, his tenure was the last time we had the old Nixon/Ford crew in power, and saw the rise of the Neocons. Many of the same people who pushed Bush into Iraq escaped prison by the skin of their Congressional testimony in the 80's, and his admitting to violating the law on television was his only way out of impeachment (yes, read up on it). His genius, however, was in turning failures into successes, and he did that in a bipartisan way. He was indeed the Great Communicator, but he was a very flawed President.

Let's start with the part that is the most controversial. A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not. As the Tower Board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages. This runs counter to my own beliefs, to administration policy, and the original strategy we had in mind. There are reasons why it happened, but no excuses. It was a mistake. I undertook the original Iran initiative in order to develop relations with those who might assume leadership in a post-Khomeini government.

It's clear from the Board's report, however, that I let my personal concern for the hostages spill over into the geopolitical strategy of reaching out to Iran. I asked so many questions about the hostages' welfare that I didn't ask enough about the specifics of the total Iran plan.

Ronald Reagan, in an address to the nation, March 4th, 1987. Bolding is mine.

Ronald Reagan won the election in large part because of his deal with the hostage-takers, which let him hammer Carter in the certain knowledge that the hostages would not be released before the election.

Er let me get his straight, the Iranians were dumb enough to bargain with a guy with absolutely no power to do anything? You just admitted that all this took place before he was elected, or are you saying even the Iranians knew Carter wasn't going anywhere after screwing up the country so badly?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Co...

In 1983, members of Al-Dawa ("The Call"), an exiled Iraqi political party turned militant organization, were imprisoned for their part in a series of truck bombs in Kuwait. In response to the imprisonment Hezbollah, an ally of Al-Dawa, took 30 Western hostages, [10] six of whom were American. Hezbollah demanded the release of the prisoners for these hostages. Members of the Reagan Administration claim they believed that by selling arms to Iran, Iran would influence the Hezbollah kidnappers in Lebanon to release their hostages. At the time, Iran was in the midst of the Iran-Iraq War and could find few nations willing to supply it with weapons. [11] The sale of arms would also, according to National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane, improve strained relations with Iran.[1] For that reason, weapons were transferred to Iran.

My mistake. I got them confused, in a big way.

Yeah, I can't blame you, since a lot of those groups are buddies anyway.

It would have been an awful sly move, though, if it was intentional and nobody had called you on it.

No, the reason is that I got it confused with the No October Surprise conspiracy theory, based on the coincidence of the hostages being released four hours after Reagan's inauguration. That had a lot of legs at the time, and I got it confused with the Hezbollah hostages.

Another article making was with Iran look very possible. When I hear responsible news organizations like The Economist (not that I'm citing The Economist here) talk about how this is a very real possibility, I have to take this stuff seriously.