It's Time to Get Tough on Iran

[Persia]

The media has recently been rife with speculation about the possibility of a U.S. or Israeli preventive strike on Iran's nuclear infrastructure -- from former CIA Director Michael Hayden's observation last month that the drift toward military action against Iran appears "inexorable" to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm.

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC06.php?CID=1496

[Pseudo Intellectual]

The hope is that either Iran agrees to a ceasefire after a while or the opposition overthrows the government. I think neither is likely, but I could be wrong.

Edited August 15, 2010 by Pseudo Intellectual

[MARAB0D]

The hope is that either Iran agrees to a ceasefire after a while or the opposition overthrows the government. I think neither is likely, but I could be wrong.

I would rather look forwards to the second option, as the Theocracy in Iran is currently in an obvious crisis. The regime of the ayatollahs must fall, there is no doubts - but Ahmadinejad is much smarter than the media tries to present him, he actually appeals to the patriotic sentiments, rather than to religious beliefs. If Iranians dislodges the religious rule, the policy of the country would most likely remain anti-Western and anti-Israeli no matter what, as this is dictated by the public opinion there, not by the ayatollahs. The core issue is that the Iranians almost unanimously support the right of their country to manage its own resources, without allowing any foreign power to make the decisions about what to do with them, so there is no such thing as "pro-western" opposition in this country. I mean Ahmad as a politician may well survive the future revolution, and possibly even become a leader of it. Not a simple situation for US, if US wants Iranian oil.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

If anyone attacks now, it's not going to topple the theocracy, it's going to strengthen it. The leaders will beat their chests about how the enemy is attacking them, about how the enemy hates the people and so forth, and as we've seen time and again, when in crisis, the people always opt for stability. The theocracy will come out of any attack renewed.

What needs to happen is that the opposition in country is bolstered, or they're just left to topple the Theocracy itself without outside interference.

[Black Hound]

It is way past time to have cracked down on Iran. It should have ben done instead of invadig Iraq. Sure we had a dictator, with no proof he had WMD, but we seem to do pretty good at dealing with dictators and them controling behavior in their country. What we have now is a mess, worse than Nam, with no real order in sight. Hey, I got it, let's reinstitute the draft and see if that does any good. Just more grist for the grinder.

[Knight Of Shadows]

who is " we " you mean usa ? who put them as defender of world affairs ???

and you make me laugh by saying we should have and we and we

usa DOES not care about the world the only thing they care is to satisfy their endless hunger for oil that is why they invaded iraq if you say otherwise you're in denial and kidding your self

usa claim want to keep the world in peace from nuclear weapons and known it was the " ONLY " country who ever used them on humans ... what a joke

you actually buy this stuff ...

[Sabbath]

Bomb those factories imo, since they won't listen. But I'm sure they won't, perhaps until it's too late anyway. They are too soft.

Edited August 16, 2010 by Blacksabbath

[ExpandMyMind]

Just out of curiosity... I was wondering if anyone here could provide a valid reason for sanctioning Iran, never mind attacking them? Anyone? Anyone know why they are being sanctioned?

They have a nuke? not true.

They have a nuke program? Not true.

They have high grade Uranium? Not true.

They can make high grade Uranium? Not true.

Nuclear material in their country is unaccounted for? Not true.

[rassy]

Well, if the issue is that Iran has nuclear power, then I suppose all the other countries with the same type of power, and have issue with Iran doung the same, ought to either dismantle their own nuclear resources, else just shut up and stay out of it. I always fail to understand why certain countries have issues with other countries doing the same thing as themselves.

[ExpandMyMind]

Well, if the issue is that Iran has nuclear power, then I suppose all the other countries with the same type of power, and have issue with Iran doung the same, ought to either dismantle their own nuclear resources, else just shut up and stay out of it. I always fail to understand why certain countries have issues with other countries doing the same thing as themselves.

List of countries with nuclear power http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.html

It's not a problem of nuclear power. The nuclear issue is merely a smokescreen for other objectives in the region.

[LiquidSnake]

I love the word preventive, a strike will actually make things a whole lot worser. It gives incentive to Iranian forces to do something and we'll end up starting another war. War is the worst case scenario. Honestly I think we should leave Iran alone, there's no point in starting a war. Most likely their will be an uprising of some sorts there. If they attack us then by all means, attack back. The US should just leave them alone as well as NATO, there is no conclussive proof they have nukes. Its like the weapons of mass destructions in Iraq all over again.

[Pseudo Intellectual]

And if they eventually acquire nuclear weapons, what then?

[acidhead]

I love the word preventive, a strike will actually make things a whole lot worser. It gives incentive to Iranian forces to do something and we'll end up starting another war. War is the worst case scenario. Honestly I think we should leave Iran alone, there's no point in starting a war. Most likely their will be an uprising of some sorts there. If they attack us then by all means, attack back. The US should just leave them alone as well as NATO, there is no conclussive proof they have nukes. Its like the weapons of mass destructions in Iraq all over again.

yes.. its the same play book being rammed down our throats from media warhawks and hens to big-mouthed parrots who always say what 'we' should do or what 'you' or 'I' should be doing.......... I'm sick of it. If this is what 'you' believe than 'you' go fight it under your own banner. Pack your bags, grab a uniform and gun and go fight for what you believe in.... we heard the same story with Husseins WMD's and it turned out to be false. Heck, he even offered to debate Bush jr as the media built up the case for war. But Bush declined and the invasion happened anyhow. A million iraqis DEAD.... thousands of american soldiers DEAD...... a trillion dollars drained from the treasury.... and for what?!?!

Again... the following needs repeating for the seeing impaired:

'those of you who want to fight - stand on the right'.... those who don't - get on the left'

-these racketeering wars and invasions and occupations would end real fast.

[MARAB0D]

And if they eventually acquire nuclear weapons, what then?

PI, why do not you ask why USSR acquired the nukes 60 years ago, but USA remained not nuked? If you can answer this, then you would know what would be after Iran acquires the nukes. Too easy!

[Pseudo Intellectual]

PI, why do not you ask why USSR acquired the nukes 60 years ago, but USA remained not nuked? If you can answer this, then you would know what would be after Iran acquires the nukes. Too easy!

Because the Soviets weren't religious fanatics with a love of martyrdom? MAD only works if every side is interested in its survival.

And Iran could do immense damage with its nuclear weapons without even having to use them. A nuclear-armed Iran would be immune to attack (or, at least, invasion) and would be able to arm, fund and train terrorist groups without any worry of serious Israeli or US retaliation. It would destabilize the Middle-East. It would be an existential threat to Israel. It would either trigger a nuclear-arms race in the Middle East (as the Arabs would want nuclear weapons of their own to counter Iran) or cause the Arabs (or at least the Gulf states) to distance themselves from America and become Iran's allies, or both. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

[MARAB0D]

Because the Soviets weren't religious fanatics with a love of martyrdom? MAD only works if every side is interested in its survival.

And Iran could do immense damage with its nuclear weapons without even having to use them. A nuclear-armed Iran would be immune to attack (or, at least, invasion) and would be able to arm, fund and train terrorist groups without any worry of serious Israeli or US retaliation. It would destabilize the Middle-East. It would be an existential threat to Israel. It would either trigger a nuclear-arms race in the Middle East (as the Arabs would want nuclear weapons of their own to counter Iran) or cause the Arabs (or at least the Gulf states) to distance themselves from America and become Iran's allies, or both. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

BS! Iran exists for 4,000 years - 20 times longer than USA exists. And never committed a suicide, so one would expect it to persevere the same way further on. As for USA - we simply do not have enough historical data to be sure, is it inclined to commit a suicide or not...

[Pseudo Intellectual]

BS! Iran exists for 4,000 years - 20 times longer than USA exists. And never committed a suicide, so one would expect it to persevere the same way further on. As for USA - we simply do not have enough historical data to be sure, is it inclined to commit a suicide or not...

4,000 years? I was under the impression the Islamic Revolution happened only 30 years ago.

[MARAB0D]

4,000 years? I was under the impression the Islamic Revolution happened only 30 years ago.

And Obama is in power for 2 years only - should we also start counting American history from him? Iran was there making rugs and using the water-flushed toilets when your personal ancestors were living in the underground pits, so leave the Persians alone.

[Knight Of Shadows]

lol the guy don't even know what 2 years old boy should know about history

Islamic Revolution happened only 30 years ago.

hehehehe this is it .. jim carry is dead

some people claim iran support terrorists .. but just claims no prove

but ALL people knows the terrorism caused by israel and the nerve

they show it on the media every few day they kill people and civilians

a break

Edited August 17, 2010 by Knight Of Shadows

[Moon Monkey]

some people claim iran support terrorists .. but just claims no prove

Well that is not quite true, there is plenty out there but let's start with terrorist testimony.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5384622273700112589#

but ALL people knows the terrorism caused by israel and the nerve

Proof ?

[Black Red Devil]

I mean.....the article is hyped up BS. It's intended to stir up anti-Iranian sentiments and make out that Tehran's the one looking for a confrontation. Even blind Freddie can see this.

It starts up by claiming that Ahmadinejad believes the US is a declining power and this is a good enough reason to strike. C'mon!! This hypothesis or more precisely, accusation, from the author derives from a speech at the UN where Ahmadinejad observed that there was a need for "a reform of the United Nations, the international economic order, and the entire system of international relations" Well, hello.

The article also mentions that it expects Iran would attack (or should???) because of constant sanctions (it's a miracle they already haven't considering the feeble reasons!!) and the fact that it's provoking US forces into a war with their small boats in the Persian Gulf. Not in the Gulf of Mexico, in the Persian Gulf!!. And continues on with a load of more gab which I don't even want to comment on.

Seems to me the article and the authors are on a mission to stir up US readers into believing "the time is ripe and we better strike first before Iran strikes us and invades". What a joke.

The article ends with a slight dig at Obama as well.

President Barack Obama came into office committed to reducing tensions with Iran and transforming the troubled relationship between the two countries by offering an outstretched hand and an open dialogue with that country's leaders. These are, of course, laudable goals that remain on the table. Ironically, however, if diplomacy is to still have a chance and he is to achieve these goals, Obama will also have to convince Tehran that his outstretched hand can be formed into a fist. While continuing to pursue dialogue, Washington must act cautiously yet firmly with the Islamic Republic to succeed in managing tensions today and avoiding a larger confrontation in the future

Obviously Obama hasn't been pursuing a war with Tehran fast enough for this author.

Edited August 17, 2010 by BlackRedLittleDevil

[Power Lust]

I would rather look forwards to the second option, as the Theocracy in Iran is currently in an obvious crisis. The regime of the ayatollahs must fall, there is no doubts - but Ahmadinejad is much smarter than the media tries to present him, he actually appeals to the patriotic sentiments, rather than to religious beliefs. If Iranians dislodges the religious rule, the policy of the country would most likely remain anti-Western and anti-Israeli no matter what, as this is dictated by the public opinion there, not by the ayatollahs. The core issue is that the Iranians almost unanimously support the right of their country to manage its own resources, without allowing any foreign power to make the decisions about what to do with them, so there is no such thing as "pro-western" opposition in this country. I mean Ahmad as a politician may well survive the future revolution, and possibly even become a leader of it. Not a simple situation for US, if US wants Iranian oil.

Why is their Theocracy in a crisis?

Have you seen it with your own eyes or do these opinions come from what you've seen in the media?

Is it something you want to personally believe is happening?

[MARAB0D]

Why is their Theocracy in a crisis?

Have you seen it with your own eyes or do these opinions come from what you've seen in the media?

Is it something you want to personally believe is happening?

I know many Iranians here, local and from Iran too. Persians are not "believers" at all, this country is next to be an atheistic one. They just have to live a double life, praying in public and making parties at home. Even in the most rural areas each farmer has huge underground jugs with wine, thoroughly concealed from a local mullah, and a wife there is only one and often rules the family. Iran is an educated society. Situation there resembles the last years of USSR, when the Communists were still in power, but were already not respected by anyone. The theocratic regime is in agony, and in agony it bites, becomes dangerous - this is why the fear is holding the development, but this cannot last for too long. In some sense even the Islamic Revolution was a freak accident, the Sharia laws won only because the Shah's administration was so corrupt that the population chose to have the laws which cut off a stealing hand. Really, knowing all that I read such American articles with a feeling that they are written by a person in delirium.

[Corp]

Didn't Iran say a few months back that they had enough material to build a bomb if they wanted to? Seem to recall seeing an article about that.

[Knight Of Shadows]

Well that is not quite true, there is plenty out there but let's start with terrorist testimony.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5384622273700112589#

Proof ?

first that doesn't prove crap .. because i think the whole world knows

by now ... the people who aren't in denial ... knows that even

osama bin laden was only cover to wage war on afganstan eh ?

it's all crystal clear now except for those who too blind to see

bin laden was merely a game to fool the puplic and give excuse to war

on afaganstan now you expect me to buy this video otherwise ?

usa will try " ANYTHING " to tie iran to terrorists to wage war on them

EVEN IF IT COST THEM THE LOSSES IT DID IN 11

yeah this is how far they migh go

and for israel terrorism no prove needed really

just look at civilians murders and umarmed people getting killed

for no reason look at lebanon war where israel killed over 10000 civilians

and only targeted civilians their way of ending the war is " kill

civilians as much as possiable and the world would stop the war "

coz they were losing

you need more prove than that ... turn on an arabic news channel

and see how many palestine dies every day " unarmed civilians "

with israeli soliders weapons actually terrorism word don't do justice

to describe israel actions