Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The pro-Israel lobby.

I'm going to have to dispute that. Israel has been a US ally in the region since it was founded. They need no lobby to maintain political support in the US.

Anyway, the Iran issue is, like most issues in geopolitics, very complex. I'll try to see if I can quantify this.

Reason #1: History

It all starts at Operation Ajax. The CIA and M16 collaborated in backing anti-communist rebels in Iran, who overthrew their democratically elected government and installed the Shah's authoritarian and absolute (but most importantly, anti-USSR and pro-USA) government. Unfortunately, the Shah was not that good of a ruler, as dictators often are. Eventually, the exiled but popular Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned to Iran and, well... you probably know the rest of that story.

Operation Ajax told an entire generation of Iranians what they were to expect from the West: The overthrow of democratically elected leaders and the exploration of their people if it served the West's greater interests in dealing with the spread of communism. This bad impression on an entire people's cultural identity would boil over years later and lead the Iranians to the theocratic government they have today.

Not a good start.

Reason #2: Iran's Allies

Iran and North Korea are on good terms. Not the best thing for ever reconciling with the United States, given that Americans generally despise the governments of both nations. Oddly enough, this antipathy generally does not extend to the actual people of the nations in question in both cases. The North Koreans are just kind of sad in how badly things are for them, and polling data shows that Iranians and Americans both highly disapprove of each others governments....but not much else.

The other, much larger problem with Iran's allies is the relationship between Iran and Russia. Putin loves trying to expand his power base on the world market, and causing problems for the USA with nations that are openly hostile to us is a golden opportunity to him. It should be little surprise that he has done everything in his power to use his anti-west stance to help strengthen Iran so it will give the US even more problems.

Reason #3: Iran's Enemies

Of course, the big one is that for the moment, the United States and Iran have no official diplomatic ties and are basically in a mini-Cold War with each other. That the US supports and has always supported Israel, which Iran constantly calls "Zionist occupied territories" probably speaks for itself. There's also the interesting dynamic that Saudi Arabia opposes Iran because it is the heartland of Shia Islam, and if there's anything Saudi Arabia can't stand it's the continued existence of Shia Islam. Saudi Arabia also gets a lot of business from the US, which helps make some clearly defined lines as to whom is on who's side in this tangled web of relationships.

The most interesting thing about that is that it would technically put Saudi Arabia and Israel on the same side if war breaks out against Iran. Talk about surreal.

Reason #4: Joining the Nuclear Club

Israel and Iran both technically do not have any recognized nuclear weapons. That Israel "does not have nukes" is the most openly silly and absolutely devious concepts on the geopolitical stage. It lets Israel dodge the pesky restrictions imposed by actually owning nuclear weapons while still holding nuclear weapons and letting everyone in the region know it. Iran is a bit more tricky. Is their program to generate power alone or is it to make a nuke? I don't think I can tell you. There is enough conflicting data on this subject that we do not have a straight answer.

All we do know is that Mossad seems rather determined to explode the hell out of anyone in Iran who is trying to advance their nuclear program, whether it exists for peace or for war.

Oh, and remember how I mentioned that Israel loves letting everyone know that they have nukes? The Samson Option (regional mutually assured destruction, even if Israel is the only one who ever launches) was probably intentionally leaked by Israel themselves to keep the rest of the region off of their backs. In light of this existing, Iran having nukes opens the door to Bad Things happening to Earth.


So there you have it. The situation between Iran and Israel is heating up more and more every day, and Israel wants to know that the US will back them if a hot war breaks out. Meanwhile, there are plenty of Americans who would be just fine with seeing Iran's government go down in flames. There are some bad potentials in all of this, and the only way out of it that won't end in widespread violence is a peaceful democratic revolution in Iran, and soon. I don't see that as very likely, but it's all we've got.

[LordBucket]

EDIT: Apparently MetalSlimeHunt beat me to some of this. But I spent a lot of time reading and typing it.

Hope you've got awhile. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States-Iran_relations

Wow. There was some stuff in there I was unaware of.

Apparently we were on very friendly terms with Iran until 1953, when we overthrew their governemnt because they decided to nationalize their oil supply rather than allow a british company to retain control. They had a parliamentary democracy, and we replaced it with a puppet dictatorship that was symapthetic to ours and british financial interests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax

The other reason people see Iran as a threat to American interests goes back to the Islamic
Revolution thing and the seizing of the U.S. embassy in Iran when the Shah was overthrown.

Yes. Apparently after 26 years, the Iranians got fed up of being ruled by an american puppet, and revolted against him. We gave him asylum, and they responded by attacking a US embassy and taking hostages.

Meanwhile, during the chaos of transition to their new self-appointed government, Iran was invaded by Iraq. A war that lasted 8 years, and apparently, we were ones giving Iraq the weapons to attack them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_iraq_war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war

Then there was another screw up having to do with illegal arms sales in Iran by the U.S. government known as Iran-Contra.  The main issue here was with President Regan illegally, depending on who you ask, selling weapons to revolutionaries opposed to the Islamic government.

Now this I remember, at least by name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Contra_Scandal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Nicaragua

...so, apparently...while Iraq was invading Iran using the weapons we were giving them...we decided it would be a good idea to also sell weapons to Iran, in violation of our own embargo...supplying both sides weapons...and then used the proceeds of those arms sales to fund terrorists in Nicaragua.

Meanwhile, the US navy shoots down a civilian Iranian airliner flying in Iranian airspace:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

Wow.

Just...wow.

But they hate us because of our freedoms, right?

[LordBucket]

So there you have it.

I don't know. After spending the past two hours wiki-walking from the link alway gave me, I still don't see much reason for americans to feel justified destroying iran. Attempting to be impartial, it does seems like mistakes have been made on both sides...but on the balance it looks to me like the iranians have more reason to be unhappy with us than we do with them. That we apparently started this whole thing is probably very easily overlooked...even I wasn't aware of that, and I think I'm generally more well informed than most americans. If I didn't know, probably the vast majority of americans also don't know.

Personally, my earliest memories of any possibility of problems with Iran was the Iran-contra affair. I was young, but I do remember it, sort of. But prior to having read up on it just now, the extent of my memory was basically that we sold weapons that apparently we weren't supposed to have, and a lot of speculation as to how much Reagen knew about it. But us doing something presumed to be wrong doesn't do much to explain hostility towards Iran.

Maybe we can suggest that a lot of the people I've had these discussions with don't know about that anymore than they know about our having overthrown the Iranian government in the 50s, or any of the other incidents that make us look bad. But looking at iranian slights against the US, and we basically have the bombing of an american embassy in 1983, and the american diplomats held hostage in 1979.

Granted, the events of september 11, 2001 demonstrate that plenty of americans are all too happy to go invading entire countries and killing lots of people in retribution for the actions of a very small number of individuals...but overall I come away wondering if a lot of the dislike of Iran comes basically from guilt. It's pretty much either that, or identification with Israel.

Even if we selectively look at only the facts that make Iran look bad, I don't see justification for the emotional charge I see in some people I talk to, or for the burning desire to...as some people phrase it "nuke them to glass and repave their country into a giant parking lot." I've seriously spoken to people who feel that strongly about it and then get angry at me for having to audacity to ask why they feel that way.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

We've basically become historical enemies after all this time. Once that perception sets in it won't change until there's a paradigm shift of some kind.

[darkflagrance]

Maybe we should invade them again before they get their nuclear program up and running and re-install a new democratic government a la Iraq ;P It could be a matching set!

[Reelya]

Chomsky can say it better than i ever could

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20100702.htm


He cites this D.O.D report on the actual threat :-

 http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=58833

“With sufficient foreign assistance,” the report states, “Iran could probably develop and test an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the United States by 2015.”

Tautlogy, Iran can't make ICBMs but if every ICBM owning country got together and helped them they totally could be nuking us tomorrow. That's like asking other nations to fund Iran 10's of billions of dollars for no benefit other than screwing America. Not going to happen. And, only the 5 permanent members of the UN security council have these ICBMS right now, 5 countries in total. They're not about to share their monopoly with random dudes.

"The report states that central to Iran’s “deterrent strategy” is its pursuit of a nuclear program that could potentially move it closer to developing a nuclear weapon. Iran contends that its nuclear ambitions are for peaceful purposes."

Ok note key words - deterrent, pursuit, program, potentially, closer, developing. Which means to say there's no evidence they're anywhere near making nukes so it's complete conjecture. And if they actually had a nuke, they want it for a "deterrent" not to fire it, it is not longer a deterrent if you fire the nuke or give it to terrorists. Don't take my word for it, this is from the US Army's intelligence report.

Following on :-

“Iran’s nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy,” the report says.

So the very possibility of them making a nuke in future is kept alive so that they can bluff USA in negotiating. That's the key to Iran's strategy. note that there's no talk of bombing North Korea alone out of all the "axis of evil", mainly due to their "we'll blow your heads off" rhetoric. So having nukes is an excellent deterrent.

The department’s release of the analysis comes on the heels of the Nuclear Security Summit and testimony by the Pentagon’s top policy chief, who last week said the U.S. approach to Iran remains centered on preventing it from obtaining nuclear weapons and on countering Iran’s influence in the Middle East.

Here's the crux of the matter. And refer back to the chomsky article, they're more upset about Iran gaining influence through diplomacy than the threats to their own people or neighbors. THATS the true "threat" from Iran, that they diplomatically succeed. Iran doesn't have strike forces capable of invading other nations.

[Reelya]

Then there was another screw up having to do with illegal arms sales in Iran by the U.S. government known as Iran-Contra.  The main issue here was with President Regan illegally, depending on who you ask, selling weapons to revolutionaries opposed to the Islamic government.

Woah woah woah NOT to rebels, which meant USA was selling arms to BOTH sides of the Iran/Iraq war. Basically turned into arms for the hostages. "rebels against khomeini" seems to have been a loose cover-story to keep the US agents from spilling the beans.

And it was definitely illegal since there was an international arms embargo.

That the arms were not going to revolutionaries should be clear from what was sold :

According to The New York Times, the United States supplied the following arms to Iran:[30]
August 20, 1985. 96 TOW anti-tank missiles
September 14, 1985. 408 more TOWs
November 24, 1985. 18 Hawk anti-aircraft missiles
February 17, 1986. 500 TOWs
February 27, 1986. 500 TOWs
May 24, 1986. 508 TOWs, 240 Hawk spare parts
August 4, 1986. More Hawk spares
October 28, 1986. 500 TOWs

That's 2000+ anti-tank missiles and parts for anti-air missiles. Clearly these were to blow up Saddam's tanks and planes in the war.

[alway]

So in summary: congress specifically told the Reagan administration not to fund rebel groups, so the Reagan administration sold weapons to the enemy of an (at the time) allied state in order to get money to fund rebel groups. *le facepalm*

And everyone involved got off free.

Eleven convictions resulted, some of which were vacated on appeal.[12] The rest of those indicted or convicted were all pardoned in the final days of the presidency of George H. W. Bush, who had been vice-president at the time of the affair

[MadocComadrin]

I still don't see much reason for americans to feel justified destroying iran.

Do remember that people tend to only see the bad. Very few people want "to bomb Iran to oblivion" as a whole--they want to take out the regime they view as extremist and bent on "destroying the west." When viewing an enemy they believe to be so huge, they tend to forget the rest of the country, especially the innocent.

[Trapezohedron]

I still don't see much reason for americans to feel justified destroying iran.

Do remember that people tend to only see the bad. Very few people want "to bomb Iran to oblivion" as a whole--they want to take out the regime they view as extremist and bent on "destroying the west." When viewing an enemy they believe to be so huge, they tend to forget the rest of the country, especially the innocent.

True that. A pity really, that both sides can't ever negotiate peacefully, due to the mutual hatred both feel for each other. And even if they didn't hate each other, there's still Israel standing in between.

[Azkanan]

I'm suprised nobody has said this yet, but, American Propoganda has been a massive tool in this debate.

"WAR ON TERRORISM!"

Also, whenever your half-witted american general population begins to forget about it, some division of your television reignites the people's emotions of the WTC incident in 2001, making sure to use either the word "Middle-east", "War" or "Terrorism" - sometimes all three in the same sentence.

[offtopic]Seriously, I've never known a country to be so moany. Yeah, it was pretty bad, but you don't see every other country hit by disasters - heck, some every year or two - crying internationally and using it as a guilt-bargaining chip in conversation.[/offtopic]

[MadocComadrin]

Hmm? People still haven't gotten over it in the sense that you could get away with a 9/11 joke, but the fervor it originally caused is pretty much passed. It's more of a sense of morning than anything else.

[Muz]

There's a LOT of people here in Malaysia who just want to hate someone - Israel, the USA. Around 30 years ago it was the UK, South Africa.

I think some people just have a lot of hate and feel the need to direct it somewhere. I'm sure that even if the USA managed to completely settle their differences with the middle east, people would just focus it on others. Like China. Or Cuba. Or Latin America. Or Japan. Or France. Or Canada. Or Australia.

[jester]

Ill throw my 2 cents in and say there is no rational reason for it, much like the fun relationship that the US has had with cuba. 

  I think its partly the israel/US relationship and israel knowing they cant start a war with iran without the US, partly the 'rouge states (who arent our allies) cant have nukes',   partly the fact that they are probably going to be a real power in the middle east (leadership of Shia islam/everybody else is falling apart/hasnt been run by puppet goverment for a long time) and partly the fact that plenty of the higher ups in iran have very very publicly talked shit about the US for years.

  As an interesting comparison for you all the talking heads ive seen here on serious news in Australia have said 'Iran may give the appearance of being crazy, but they definately are not stupid, they know if they nuked anything, the US would see them entirely wiped off the map within 5 hours, so they would never do a damn thing, if they have nukes, it will be to deter Israel from using theirs'


  Oh, and fun sidenote, more than a few of the weapons sold during iran-contra have been used against US troops, so thats a total presidential pardon for what I believe is high treason.


Ninjaed:  Yeah, just needing an enemy probably comes into it alot as well, gotta have a reason for the whole massively bloated military budget

[RedKing]

Yeah, Iran is very much a rational actor. Ahmedinejad is often pointed to by detractors, with the subtext of "Look at this crazy Yakov Smirnov-looking dude! He's a loose cannon! He could push the big red button any minute!"

Meanwhile, anybody who's actually studied Iran knows that he's not the real power. The Supreme Council would be the ones with their hands on the trigger, and they've no interest in undermining the rather cozy position they find themselves in now.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu is engaging in his own form of brinksmanship by essentially telling Obama "If you don't do something, we WILL. And then you know you'll have to defend us from whatever the consequences are, because not doing so is political death in an election year."

If this wasn't an American election year, I think Israel is far more restrained in its rhetoric.