Print

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

[Il Palazzo]

Or Iran nukes Israel for shits and giggles.

Because they're insane Nazi Sith lords.

Because they are run by fundamentalists who have publicly stated that they want to see Israel wiped off the face of the earth.

There are about as dangerous than the American Christian Fundamentalists who want to see Israel get nuked so we can finally kick off Armageddon, only they have more direct power over their country and any nuclear weapons they get.

Only I don't buy it any more than I buy politicians telling me they'll make unemployment dissapear.
There's a difference between posturing for popular support, especially in the face of Israel's aggressive stance toward Iran, and actually commiting nation-wide suicide.

[Nadaka]

Except Iran isn't stupid enough to believe they'd have a chance if they did act as the aggressor, so that's nil.

That is rational thinking. The clerical council and their puppets are highly resistant to rational thinking. You don't have to have a chance if you act as the aggressor when you think you are going to heaven when you die.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

You mean like Libya, or Nazi Germany, or Imperialist Japan, right?

Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were on a global warpath. That falls under "necessary". You really need to get over the Libya thing, and it definitely wasn't direct military intervention. We did not land 20,000 troops on the shores of Tripoli.

I fail to find one example, including Vietnam, where it wasn't effective.

You have to understand something about Iran: The CIA and MI6 overthrew their last legitimate democratic government in the name of increasing oil profits to the UK and getting an anti-USSR ally in the region. That was their last big interaction with the West. I hope you can see how that would alienate them to the idea of a western power invading whether they are pro-democracy or not. Invading will make an enemy of the Iranians as a whole due to their cultural attitude on the subject and will strengthen the existing theocracy. This will, in turn, lead to the unnecessary deaths of US soldiers, and I can't imagine you'd want to advocate anything that would cause that. Funding pro-democracy factions so that they can do a takeover themselves is far more likely to make an ally of the Iranian people. Iran's history has left them embittered towards western intervention but not towards western values. Showing them that we are willing to help without superseding their sovereignty as a people is what will win hearts and minds, not bombing Tehran into the ground.

That there is support for western values in Iran at all is a massive advantage to taking down its theocracy. Squandering that is extremely unwise. 

There's a difference between posturing for popular support, especially in the face of Israel's aggressive stance toward Iran, and actually commiting nation-wide suicide.

Trust me, there are definitely some who want Biblical Armageddon. In fact, most of the ones who say that are being honest. Most politicians just say they support Israel.

Except Iran isn't stupid enough to believe they'd have a chance if they did act as the aggressor, so that's nil.

That is rational thinking. The clerical council and their puppets are highly resistant to rational thinking. You don't have to have a chance if you act as the aggressor when you think you are going to heaven when you die.

Seriously, Iran's real leaders are quite literally selected on the criteria that they are the most fundamental of the fundamentalists. They are not rational actors by any means, especially because they believe that dying in the pursuit of Jihad guarantees them a spot in paradise.

[Eagle_eye]

Isn't the President of Iran generally in charge of the military though? Wikipedia says he's the head of the "Supreme National Security Council", which seems like a rough equivalent of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

[Urist Imiknorris]

http://www.cracked.com/article_19461_6-b.s.-myths-you-probably-believe-about-americas-enemies.html

Meet #6.

[mainiac]

With Iran it's pretty clearly that waiting it out is not just a safe bet but also the most viable strategy for long term political change.  There is a reform movement in Iran with majority support of the population that wants to do this on it's own.  The government in Iran is not engaging in a bloody crackdown.  Right now it looks like the reformers will win in the long run so we'd be stupid to roll the dice.

Incidentally this is exactly what we did in Libya on a different time scale.  At the start of the Libyan civil war the Obama administration acted on the belief that the best thing to do was to stay out and keep from undermining the rebels legitimacy.  We only got involved after Qaddafi started his brutal crackdown and the rebels asked for outside help.  While there is political repression in Iran it's hardly a couldn't be worse situation like Libya was.  And the reformers want the US to stay out for now.

Realpolitik doesn't mean going in blazing and saying you were justified.  It means playing the game pragmatically.  And right now the pragmatic course with Iran is to give it time.

[Nadaka]

http://www.cracked.com/article_19461_6-b.s.-myths-you-probably-believe-about-americas-enemies.html

Meet #6.

No. I AM talking about the clerical council. I am fully aware that they control more or less everything and that Ahmadinejad is mostly just a figure head. I also believe they are fully capable of sacrificing themselves, their nation or even the entire world on the bloody altar of their dark age religion. These guys believe in jihad, and there is nothing more dangerous than people with that kind of faith in the position to wield it against millions.

[mainiac]

If they were as you describe them then they would already be at war with us.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

They are kind of in a low-intensity war with the US, what with all the covert sabotage and total lack of diplomatic relations.

[palsch]

Maybe we can bring some nuance into the conversation about Iran?

I mean, they are regarded by most nations I'm aware of (including the USA and Israel) as a rational state actor. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs explicitly stated as much earlier this year, and you can see the same indicators in how Israel engage with them. An irrational actor must either be removed or neutralised using direct methods. A rational actor can be manipulated using the methods Israel and the US engage in. The fear from Israel is that Iran will gain a position of power, not act irrationally, threatening Israel's regional superiority. The biggest fear for the USA (alongside sharing that of Israel) is that nuclear material and/or weapons produced in Iran may fall into the hands of non-state actors who won't be rational players.

As for the Guardian Council being mindless jihadis, I don't think that follows at all. Most are long term, experienced politicians even when they are clerics first. Take one example; Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi. He is anti-reformist and prosecuted reformist politicians in 2001. He is also an Iraqi who used to be a senior member of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a Shi'a Islamist group originally founded to overthrow Saddam. Shahroudi's main efforts within Iran has been the Decriminalization Bill; a massive liberalisation of Iran's criminal justice system, removing jail sentences under six months in favour of rehabilitative work and community service, massive reform of juvenile punishment and the forbidding of the death penalty for those with low mental development. Outside Iran he is better known for setting up the 2002 moratorium on stoning.

This is one of six clerics on the council, alongside the six lawyers. He is one I picked at random because he had a decent length English wiki page and I don't feel like dealing with translations or heavy texts tonight. But it's just an example to show that dismissing these players as irrational jihadists is missing a lot of details and likely grossly inaccurate.

It's not saying that conflict with Iran isn't likely; rational states often come into conflict. But treating them as a rabid dog that has to be put down for everyone's safety is just wrong and likely hugely counterproductive. And this is still ignoring the wider population, reform movement, the complex nuclear situation, their regional influence and dozens of other factors.

[Urist_McDrowner]

Iran is a rational, yet sinister actor. They fund hezbollah. They fund Hamas. They fund the Syrian government. They fight the cause of freedom wherever possible. Those things are the symptom, Iran is the disease. By treating the symptoms and not the disease, all we do is buy time and put the patient through more pain.

[Blacksmith]

And the US funded the Iranian Theocracy. So clearly it is just a symptom, and we must fight the disease!

Also, Palsch. I like you, but how are we ever going to get anywhere if you keep inserting reasoned argument, littered with facts and sources, in a cool and non-confrontational manner. It's almost as if you want us to be reasonable. Its disconcerting.

[Urist_McDrowner]

And the US funded the Iranian Theocracy. So clearly it is just a symptom, and we must fight the disease!

The second part of your post is appropriate with this.

[darkrider2]

Also, Palsch. I like you, but how are we ever going to get anywhere if you keep inserting reasoned argument, littered with facts and sources, in a cool and non-confrontational manner. It's almost as if you want us to be reasonable. Its disconcerting.

[Kilroy the Grand]

Iran is a rational, yet sinister actor. They fund hezbollah. They fund Hamas. They fund the Syrian government. They fight the cause of freedom wherever possible. Those things are the symptom, Iran is the disease. By treating the symptoms and not the disease, all we do is buy time and put the patient through more pain.

Well from your position, it must be ease to call them a "disease" and they "fight the cause of freedom". I'm sure where they are standing they are standing on a precipice, on one side you have one of the worlds largest militaries wringing it's hands and massing ships in a vital shipping lane. On their door step is a nuclear capable nation, who isn't to shy about appropriating land.

They might even trust us if we didn't have a penchant for overthrowing democracies to install a more western friendly one in it's stead, you know, like in 1953 when we overthrew Mohammad Mosaddegh?