Print

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

[Neonivek]

you'd honestly be surprised the kind of effect economic sanctions can have, especially against a country that depends on foreign trade the way Iran does

It really depends on how self-sustaining a country can be.

There are some countries that have actually easily survived terrible depressions that would have killed much of their population because they actually knew how to handle food production and distribution.

I am worried however that the world will develop "Geopolitical ADD".

Iraq though doesn't look like a country that could easily be self-sustained.

[Reelya]

I'll trust the Pentagon's assessment of Iran's nuclear program more than politician-speak in newspapers. Here's Chomsky's take on the issue:
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20100702.htm
Here's the original article, which I will take quotes from:
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=58833

Some interesting attempt to "sex up" the report right at the start which is a forehead-slapping tautology:

“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.”

A single ICBM launcher costs about $100 Billion, and what's this "sufficient foreign assistance"? Only the 5 permanent members of the UN Security council have ICBMs to my knowledge. Basically this is saying that if one of the top-tier nuclear powers gave Iran ICBMs they could install them within a few years. ANY country could have ICBMs with “With sufficient foreign assistance”, and it's pure alarmism to put a 2015 date on this when there is in fact, no "foreign assistance" for ICBMs in the works at all.

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.

“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.

(emphasis mine - to point out how many "ifs" the Pentagon loads the report with, to give you an idea how much they're grasping at straws)

Ok, Pentagon's assessment: Iran keeps the "possibility" of a nuclear program alive as a bargaining chip against being invaded - that's what deterrent strategy means - in other words the Pentagon knows that Iran's stance is purely defensive. Since they had that invasion by US-backed Iraq in the 1980's they have a anti-invasion deterrence poilcy. And their military is entirely structured around slowing down invading armies while they try to negotiate for peace - they do not have overwhelming "force projection" like the United States etc.

Chomsky (and the DOD report) talks about the main gist of American efforts which are to counter the "destabilizing" efforts of Iranian diplomacy in the middle-east.

The written report to Congress cited Iran’s influence in the Middle East -- including its proxies Hezbollah and Hamas, in Lebanon and Gaza, respectively -- and its reach into Iraq and Afghanistan. Military and defense officials have characterized such behavior as “destabilizing.”

Flournoy last week said a vital component of U.S. strategy to counter Iranian influence is to strengthen the security capacities of vulnerable states in the region, noting that both Gates and Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, both have traveled to the region in recent months.

“It's a vital avenue for countering destabilizing Iranian activities, and we believe we are seeing some results,” Flournoy said of efforts to build partner capacity. “In Iraq and Lebanon, for instance, our efforts to develop the capacity of security forces and improve governance have helped to weaken Iran's proxies.”

A noteworthy observation is how the terms stability and destabilizing are used in American media: Any action which enforces American corporate control overseas, no matter how destructive and how many conflicts it causes (e.g. backing genocidal regimes), is "Stabilizing" an area. (read articles on Latin America etc). Any non-American action to strengthen regional forces which in some way sidelines American control is "Destabilizing".

e.g. when Hugo Chavez signs treaties, or gives financial aid or discount oil to other countries, e.g. subsidizing heating oil for poor Americans, he's "destabilizing" the region. And when the Bush Administration backed the Colombian government in 2008 bombing Ecuador and demonizing both Ecuador and Venezuela as terrorist countries (talking up a regional war), they talk about Colombia and the United States as forces for "stability".

I'll point out that government assassin squads exist in Colombia with recent mass-graves of trade unionists and human-rights protestors killed by uniform soldiers, right-wing death squads infiltrate universities and make "hit lists" of Professors who are seen as left-wing, even murdering some of them, and when this is reported to the authorities, it's the professors who get investigated or arrested, not the death squads. And all this is just from 2002-2010.

Similarly, America invades Iraq and Afghanistan, throws them into utter chaos, and talks about all their efforts as "stabilizing". Iran attempting to have good relations through diplomacy or aid offers - even with regimes that America put into power - is pure "destabilizing".

[Neonivek]

Ohh those silly Americans

While not the most evil they are just so upfront about it, it is hard to stay mad.

Also arn't we pretty much immune to a single ICBM?

[Flying Dice]

Theoretically, yes. Of course the best outcome would be for there to not be anyone launching nuclear-tipped ICBMs at us to begin with.

[Neonivek]

Theoretically, yes. Of course the best outcome would be for there to not be anyone launching nuclear-tipped ICBMs at us to begin with.

Why would they? That is a fantastically dumb move for Iran who doesn't have a chain of alliance required to pull it off.

And before you say "But they have crazy people" I have to state... that they have at LEAST enough common sense that they didn't die by running into enemy swords because it would tarnish them.

[Flying Dice]

When you have a deep enough belief in the rightness of your cause to be willing to both kill and die for it, you quite often tend to also have the willingness to sacrifice many others for it. If anyone in the world would be willing to start a no-win scenario like a mutual nuclear war, religious fanatics (of any stripe) would be among my top guesses. For certain types of crazy, self-preservation and societal preservation take a back seat when you have the chance to hurt your enemy.

[Reelya]

you have to step back and ask, would self-destruction aid their "cause"?

Iran wants to survive though to keep promoting Shia Islam, and their dominance of it (probably the more important thing). That amounts to both political and religious goals, which are not at all served by destruction of Iran.

self-destruction to take out Israel wouldn't achieve their organizational aims. A suicide-bomber's motivation is to achieve a political victory for the survivors - there's no logic even for an extremist for an entire country to commit suicide. Every Palestinian being a suicide bomber would defeat the very purpose of the campaign, which is to free the Palestinian people and land from control, that's fundamentally a political aim.

similarly, Iran's problem with Israel isn't that "jews exist", it's that they believe Israel oppresses and occupies Arab land. Nuking the shit out of the very land (and the Arabs who live there too) wouldn't achieve Iran's objectives.

Any successful organization has one primary objective - to perpetuate that organization. All other goals are secondary.

[Gantolandon]

Thirdly, the people suffering is the point. The idea of the sanctions is to convince them to rise up against the theocracy. It isn't like they don't suffer in other ways because it controls the nation. We're talking about a place where gay people get executed for existing and women can be stoned to death for "sorcery".

But stupid Iranians won't rebel, so of course they have to be starved. It's for their own good!

Call me naive, but deliberately making the country's economy go to shit to cause a civil war there doesn't strike me as more ethical than an actual invasion.

Edit: Iranians, of course. I'm still asleep.

[sneakey pete]

Also arn't we pretty much immune to a single ICBM?

Well, apart from whoever and whatever is in the blast and fallout areas, yes. There exists no operational program from any country to stop ICBM's.

there are some anti missile programs for Medium range missiles (eg, ones that may be used to attack isreal from iran), however.

[RedWarrior0]

Also arn't we pretty much immune to a single ICBM?

Well, apart from whoever and whatever is in the blast and fallout areas, yes. There exists no operational program from any country to stop ICBM's.

Yes there is. Don't let them have ICBMs in the first place

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Thirdly, the people suffering is the point. The idea of the sanctions is to convince them to rise up against the theocracy. It isn't like they don't suffer in other ways because it controls the nation. We're talking about a place where gay people get executed for existing and women can be stoned to death for "sorcery".

But stupid Iranians won't rebel, so of course they have to be starved. It's for their own good!

Call me naive, but deliberately making the country's economy go to shit to cause a civil war there doesn't strike me as more ethical than an actual invasion.

Edit: Iranians, of course. I'm still asleep.

"Don't rock the boat, man, I don't know why you can't just accept the theocracy."

Revolutions need a spark. As long as people don't feel that the situation is desperate enough most of them will not try to change it. Societal-wide procrastination, if you will. Political reform is not an option in a theocratic system like Iran's. Revolution, or at least the threat of it, is the most effective path to change.

So yes, us putting them in a bad place is for their own good. This way they'll have the motivation to reach out and actually take what they want and need. And at the end of the day it'll be the Iranians controlling their own future. Not the Iranian clergy and not the US government, but the people of Iran.

[RedWarrior0]

Unless we invade them.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Which would be a massive problem for all parties involved

[Reelya]

iran's not getting ICBM's it was just the intro to the Pentagon's threat assessment that said if a wealthy country GIVES Iran ICBM's then they could attack America within 5 years. (the actual quote was "by 2015" and the report came out in 2010).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercontinental_ballistic_missile#Modern_ICBMs

Russia, the United States and China are the only countries currently known to possess land-based ICBMs.

Since this scenario just isn't going to happen, i have to assume the entire nonsensical passage was inserted to "sex up" the report. Those missile systems cost 100's of billions, and as wiki states only 3 countries in the world have them. They don't "give them away".

“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.”

Yeah but with "sufficient foreign assistance", Iran could probably land a man on Mars within 5 years. Because "sufficient" is always as much support as you need. Totally meaningless alarmist bullshit.

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.
“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, really the best that the Pentagon can come up with about Iran is that they have no nuclear weapons program, but they invest in tech which could, you know, maybe leave the door open to having a nuclear weapons program at some unspecified point in the future, as a "deterrent" (the Pentagon's term, not mine), and that if Russia and China gave them 100's of billions of dollars of free shit and sent all their ICBM technicians down - for free, i might add - then they could have built nuclear missiles for Iran in no time flat.

As much as the Iranians are a threat to their own populace, this "threat to America" stuff is just low level brainwashing of the masses to accept a war, no different to the posters in WWI which depicted German "Huns" bayoneting babies to death. Americans are at far greater risk of being randomly killed by the police in the USA than targeted by Iran.

As chomsky states, you read between the lines of the Pentagon report and other statements, it's clear what the real worry is, if Iran gains political influence, America will have to negotiate with them. And if they gain a "deterrent" (weapons) then America's ability to fuck with them goes out the window.

Iran spreading "influence" (diplomats and aid) is "destabilizing". That's stated in black and white in the report. While America dropping bombs on people supposedly "stabilizes" the region.

[Levi]

Yeah, I honestly can't see this as a good thing.  Making people angry and hungry isn't going to do anything for helping peace in the long term.  Its just going to make people even more pissed off and less likely to listen to you the next time.