Is Iran a Threat?
Yossarian
Forum Resistance Leader
I always try to look at it from the Iranian perspective in this instance, I feel honestly there is no way you can dismantle any sort of tense situation anywhere if you don't put your self in the other party's shoes.
In my opinion I think Iran is not going to make nukes but you suppose that my supposition is wrong.
You know that two or three nuclear weapons can’t be a deterrent weapon for Iran against thousands west nukes or hundreds Israel nukes. So your reasoning can be the competition between ME countries and the world following it.
You suppose that Iran stop and destroy all his nuclear activities for this reason. So what will happen for west and others countries nukes?
Do they agree to destroy their nukes?
And if they don’t, what is their reason to have those?
You know that two or three nuclear weapons can’t be a deterrent weapon for Iran against thousands west nukes or hundreds Israel nukes. So your reasoning can be the competition between ME countries and the world following it.
You suppose that Iran stop and destroy all his nuclear activities for this reason. So what will happen for west and others countries nukes?
Do they agree to destroy their nukes?
And if they don’t, what is their reason to have those?
What the Western Media did, and still does not state in the last decade of coverage about the rapid tensions both real, and imagined by American journalists.
Is the recuring failure to look at the situation in a more logical sense.
The fact is there is a lot of overlooked logic in looking at this simple map.
Iran in some rights have plenty of reason to be worried , especially during the last decade, and I if I was a Iranian military leader, regardless of my opinions of the ruling regeime
I would be militarizing the populace heavily towards armed defense as well.
Why?
Look at Iraq, and look at Afghanistan, both had heavy Coalition prescenses in the last decade, on two of Iran's major borders.
Also, the world's only naval superpower was, and is prowling the waters around Iran's ports an major source of economic stimulation.
If I were a military leader in Iran, or a policy maker, I would be worried to.
It's this little mentioned fact that comes through when the Western media demonizes Iran. Let alone show a skyline picture of modern Tehran.
To put this in better perspective, imagine what Americans would feel like if a Massive Russian military presense exsisted in Canada. And say a massive Chinese force was deployed in Mexico, tell me some brows would not be sweating right now?
Given Iran's situation, and although as a individual I am strongly opposed to it, but if Iran has any real tangible hope at victory against any determined American incurision, short of drawing in a regional ally (a heavily equipped miltary power that can challenge U.S. troops) , which does not seem to be a diplomatic solution any time soon.
Then nuclear weapons may be the only vialbe option to use against any invading U.S. or Israeli military forces.
THIS is why the situation is so crictal at this junction if events keep going at this rate.
And the way the U.S. and Western powers are "pressuring" Iran is NOT helping in any way, all it seems to be doing is having the OPPISITE effect and pushing Iran ever closer to a nuclear arsenal, spurring either conflict or an arms race in the Region.
The fact that Iran is (was) surrounded by us forces has different reasons. The naval forces are there because of the Carter doctrine to protect US interests and to safeguard the oil supply so important for the world economy. During the Iran-Iraq war the Iranian air force attacked oil facilities in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (a Saudi F-15 shot down a Iranian F-4 on June 5 1984) and oil tanker traffic and even conducted naval maneuvers in Saudi territorial waters. So there goes the myth that Iran does not attack other countries.
The US forces in Iraq are all gone. There is no threat from Iraq to Iran, on the contrary, the two countries like each other very well.
US forces invaded Afghanistan because of 9/11, not because of Iran. Iran does supply the Taliban with weapons.
Iran supplies weapons to Hezbollah (Lebanon is the world's biggest ammunition depot) and Hamas, which covenant demands the destruction of Israel.
Iranian weapons shipments were intercepted by Israel, Turkey, Nigeria (13 containers!), Yemen, NATO troops in Afghanistan and US naval forces.
UN Security Council resolution 1747 bans arms export from Iran.
The Iranian Quds Force has been described as "tasked with exporting" Iran's Islamic revolution or "responsible for extraterritorial operations" of the Revolutionary Guard and reports directly to the Supreme Leader of Iran Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The translation is .....Jerusalem Force.
In 2006, Hassan Abbasi, Head of the Iranian Centre for Doctrinal Strategic Studies, said: "Britain's demise is on our agenda." He added: "We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization.
ahmadinejad and khamenei on israel and the us and the uk
Your leaders have said :
1. That Israel, UK and the USA must be destroyed.
2. Nuclear research is for peaceful purposes.
Are they both true or false? And if only one is true then why are they lying?
Der Alte
Banned
Unfortunately, all too many simply cannot place themselves into the shoes of foreigners who have experienced the heavy boot of the British Empire and the U.S. Empire.
If I were Iranian I would see the world in this way.
All we hear from U.S. officials is how aggressive Iran is — how it is threatening the world with its aggression — how it’s trying to get WMDs to initiate a nuclear war against the United States — how necessary it is to spend billions of dollars on a missile defense system in Europe to protect against an Iranian attack.
It’s all a bunch of propagandistic crock.
Is Iran surrounding the United States with troops in Mexico and Canada? Are Iranian naval vessels patrolling the coastlines along the eastern and western United States and in the Gulf of Mexico? Is Iran imposing sanctions on the United States, covertly assassinating American scientists, and covertly engaging in cyber attacks on American computer facilities? Is it Iran that is flying spy planes over the United States? Is it Iran that has invaded and occupied two countries in the last 10 years? Is it Iran that has embarked on an international program of kidnapping, torture, assassination, secret international prisons, torture partnerships with brutal dictatorships, and extra-judicial execution?
No, it’s the other way around. It is the U.S. Empire that has Iran surrounded, with imperial troops around the region. It is the U.S. Empire whose foreign policy is committed to violent regime change operations in nations like Iran — either covertly as the CIA did with Mossadegh or overtly like the Pentagon did with Saddam Hussein. It is the U.S. Empire that has invaded and occupied two countries in the past 10 years. It is the U.S. Empire that is undoubtedly engaged in covert operations in Iran. It is the U.S. Empire that has spy drones flying over Iranian air space. It is the U.S. Empire that is characterized by kidnapping, torture, assassination, secret prisons, torture partnerships with brutal dictatorships, and extra-judicial executions—the things that would be considered state terrorism if they were being done by Iran or any other nation.
And, of course, it’s the British government, harkening back to its halcyon days as an empire, that tags along, doing whatever the U.S. Empire does in the hopes of basking in its imperial glory.
Don’t get me wrong. The Iranian people are suffering under a cruel dictatorship. No doubt about that. But the dictatorship is no more cruel than it was under the Shah, whom Britain and the United States installed into power, after violently ending Iran’s attempt at democracy. But the fact that Iranians are governed by a cruel dictatorship doesn’t mean that the dictatorship is bent on worldwide conquest.
If I were Iranian I would see the world in this way.
All we hear from U.S. officials is how aggressive Iran is — how it is threatening the world with its aggression — how it’s trying to get WMDs to initiate a nuclear war against the United States — how necessary it is to spend billions of dollars on a missile defense system in Europe to protect against an Iranian attack.
It’s all a bunch of propagandistic crock.
Is Iran surrounding the United States with troops in Mexico and Canada? Are Iranian naval vessels patrolling the coastlines along the eastern and western United States and in the Gulf of Mexico? Is Iran imposing sanctions on the United States, covertly assassinating American scientists, and covertly engaging in cyber attacks on American computer facilities? Is it Iran that is flying spy planes over the United States? Is it Iran that has invaded and occupied two countries in the last 10 years? Is it Iran that has embarked on an international program of kidnapping, torture, assassination, secret international prisons, torture partnerships with brutal dictatorships, and extra-judicial execution?
No, it’s the other way around. It is the U.S. Empire that has Iran surrounded, with imperial troops around the region. It is the U.S. Empire whose foreign policy is committed to violent regime change operations in nations like Iran — either covertly as the CIA did with Mossadegh or overtly like the Pentagon did with Saddam Hussein. It is the U.S. Empire that has invaded and occupied two countries in the past 10 years. It is the U.S. Empire that is undoubtedly engaged in covert operations in Iran. It is the U.S. Empire that has spy drones flying over Iranian air space. It is the U.S. Empire that is characterized by kidnapping, torture, assassination, secret prisons, torture partnerships with brutal dictatorships, and extra-judicial executions—the things that would be considered state terrorism if they were being done by Iran or any other nation.
And, of course, it’s the British government, harkening back to its halcyon days as an empire, that tags along, doing whatever the U.S. Empire does in the hopes of basking in its imperial glory.
Don’t get me wrong. The Iranian people are suffering under a cruel dictatorship. No doubt about that. But the dictatorship is no more cruel than it was under the Shah, whom Britain and the United States installed into power, after violently ending Iran’s attempt at democracy. But the fact that Iranians are governed by a cruel dictatorship doesn’t mean that the dictatorship is bent on worldwide conquest.
Yossarian
Forum Resistance Leader
I am and was fully aware of the instances in the 1980s that led to the destruction of the Iranian Navy by U.S. Forces. What should be looked at however is how this can lead to further distrust and resentment of America by various people in the region.
Although I do agree on Iran attacking first.
Plus this proves a point to Iran, the U.S. has done it before, they will be ready to do it again. With the type of regeime in charge at the moment, I am not one bit surprised that they are seeking more araments and tools of warefare.
Recent police action in Libya and proposed actions against Syria do nothing but irritate this.
Yes the major U.S. footprint in Iraq is gone, but American Eyes and Ears in Iraq are most likely not, nor will be for a long time. Also Iraq is freindly with more than Iran, such as on a business standpoint the U.S. and I am not talking about Oil.
Contracts for the purchasing and maintiaing of the new Iraqi armed forces equippment is being handled by American enterprises.
So not much has changed there. Take a look at Iraqi arms inventories and equiptement and cross reference some of it with it's place of manufacture, much of it is built on American soil.
Again, on a map although this is true, Afghanistan is right on Iran's border, and American influence goes against any Iranian regional policy plans they had or have for this area.
Having a foreign military power right next to you changes region movements a bit.
As with the recent U.S. drone incident it's already apparent the U.S. is scoping over the border.
If for example China or Russia had observation points in Mexico for instance, it would be a riot with conservatives the nation over if this were in North America.
The U.S. supplied Iran's enemies in the Iran Iraq war, so why would it be so alien a concept with the same western powers calling Iran out on, who also did the exact same thing against Iran in the 80s?
Although I think U.S. foreign policy makers often don't want to admit this, but the U.S. has a very loose tolerance of where it channels arms of any type, this has been a recuring factor and even reigniting new wars like in the instance of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1991.
America has also supplied weapons to countless revolutionary organizations in the 20th century that resulted in the overthrowing of mulitple goverments.
In this case a lot of what this has to do with is who is manning the TV and Radio satelites and barks out the condemnation first, a real measure of who can shout the "history" and "news" the loudest over the Airwaves.
I do believe this should be continued, failed U.S. policies in the past already iterate that weapons are not bio degradable, and can be just as easliy be channeled into dangourous organizations that the arms were not intended for.
Intercepting them can help neutralize this type of situation in some respects and should be continued.
How about operation Iraqi Freedom ? Or at least the U.S.'s version of Freedom, and other nostalgic words such as "liberty", and "justice" for all Iraqis.
I have no doubt these inentions are good, but it negates that fact that ideals that are suited for Americans have been shown to not be entirely shared by the nations that the U.S. military operates in.
You can't force feed on the tip of a bayonet your ideas of right and wrong, especially when dealing with a comptley different culture, it doesn't work.
You may like the color Blue, But if I like green another cool color along the same lines, I might not be in agreeance with you if you kicked in my front door an painted my walls Blue.
Last edited:
RayManKiller3
Active member
Because they had thousands of nukes before NPT was created. U.S/NATO, Russia, and China do not need nukes to threaten or defend against any nation except each other. I suggest you look at the track record U.S has when it comes to disarming its nuclear weapons.
I will have you know Russia and U.S (not sure about the other 3 countries) have been decreasing their nuclear arms steadily. You never want to fully destroy your nuclear stockpile when some other adversary country still has theirs. As I said earlier in this thread, if some country is getting a nuke (or believed to be getting a nuke), then the countries that already have it is going to have a hard time convincing it's people to go through with more disarming processes.
I do not know if Iran is in fact trying to obtain a nuclear weapon and I do realize the west could make this go a little easier, but Iran can also end it just as the west can. If you ask me, it is like Iran is begging for an airstrike. I am not sure if Israel will hold off long, especially after the U.S elections.
senojekips
Active member
Do you think for one moment that if NPT was in place at that time and Russia had hundreds of nukes that the US would not develop them?
It's all too easy now that the US has a stockpile capable of killing every living thing on earth several times over, to forbid other countries from wanting to have a mutually assured destruction defence against their enemies.
RayManKiller3
Active member
huh? So you are saying you want me to re-think history a different way? I am not sure as it would all depend on what is going on and who was President.
MAD only works when both countries have nukes and not every country applies the MAD policy that U.S did during the Cold War (the Soviets didn't for example). Their policy was limited nuclear war... Such a thing isn't truly possible. MAD policy is always a second strike policy, never a first one. Thank god General MacArthur didn't get his way lol.
It would be understanding what your saying if it was U.S unilaterally barring Iran from nuclear weapons, but this isn't so.
Der Alte
Banned
Alright -- but could Israel really, with the support of the US, attack Iran, as some argue, or could the US go directly to war with Iran as the result of increasing tension in recent months?
The following is always said in the Middle East: Significant powers always build their policies according to 50 years in the future. In other words, analyzing the events of today based only on the conditions of today is a big mistake.
As the region tries to redesign itself of its own volition, Western powers re-stake their own positions based on these moves, and all sorts of new scenarios are implemented.
In the meantime, all sorts of fronts portrayed for years in the region as threats are, in fact, now coming to power. And while major Western powers said nothing when the Algerian Islamic Salvation Front (FIS), which was overwhelming victorious in democratic elections in 1991, was crushed by a military junta that year, now they say nothing as movements similar to FIS come to power in Tunisia, Egypt and Morocco.
There can be little doubt that some significant national powers, first and foremost many Western countries, are made very uncomfortable by the spread of parties that tend toward Islam, a trend that began in Turkey, throughout the region.
After all, these are the same powers that have controlled much of the region for over 200 years and who, when parties that are both religious and nationalistic are in power, will have a difficult or even impossible time making regional leaderships do their bidding.
And when you add to this the economic and political warmness that will develop in the region between these leaderships, the situation becomes a true nightmare for Western nations and other significant powers.
Alright, so how will these aforementioned powers protect their strength and influence in the region? How will they try and prevent new unions from springing up between regional countries?
The US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, which began in 2001 and in 2003, either intentionally or accidentally served the cause and interests of Iran. The excuse for entering Afghanistan was al-Qaeda, whose very existence, not to mention its leadership cadre, was questionable. At the same time, the reason for invading Iraq was chemical weapons, which turned out not to even exist.
The only real result from the US entry into these countries was the leaving of the countries with enormous problems, the likes of which could never be solved. Though it theoretically entered Afghanistan to fight against terror, what the US will leave behind in that region is two countries that experience terror every day, which leaves countless dead: Afghanistan and Pakistan. And while it officially pulled out of Iraq around this past New Year’s, what we have now is an Iraq literally split into three parts.
These results really only benefit Iran. Prior to the American invasion, Iran was literally squashed between Pakistan-Afghanistan and Iraq. But now, it has become the greatest power in the region. Did the US and other Western nations not know that when the regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq were overthrown, Iran would emerge as the winner?
And so we have today an Iran that acts not only as the final authority on the Persian Gulf but which is also on the verge of becoming a real voice in the goings-on in the eastern Mediterranean. Iran’s name is on tongues everywhere, from Iraq to Lebanon, from Bahrain to Yemen.
Will such an Iran really allow stability to come to the region or let strong ties develop between Sunni nations? The answer is no: Iran, which throughout its long history has gone to war only with other Muslim nations, will do as it has done for centuries now and forge new alliances with Western nations while preventing ties from developing between Sunni ones.
As a result then, neither Israel nor the US will want to see the elimination or even heavy damaging of Iran by staging attacks, as it is a nation for which they will have a need in the future.
Der Alte
Banned
A German proverb says: “Revolutions that are announced in advance do not take place.”
42RM
Banned
Interesting post.
Iran is a very large country, about the size of Alaska, the nuclear installations are widely dispersed and largely underground. Even with the special deep penetration bombs provided by the US, the operation may stall the Iranian efforts – such as they are – only for a few months. The price may be too high for such meager results.
Moreover, it is quite certain that with the beginning of a war, missiles will rain down on Israel – not only from Iran, but also from Hizbollah, and perhaps also from Hamas. The amount of death and destruction would be prohibitive.
The thousands of nukes are thousands to much. Russia and the US have already reduced their nuclear arsenal and probably will continue to do so when further agreements are reached. The last thing the world needs are more countries with nukes. So if we can put a stop on new nukes then we can start at reducing the present ones, if not, we will be fighting a running battle.
No one has a a crystal ball to predict what is going to happen in the ME. There are to many variables. US elections, Israel, Syria, Sunni gulf states and even an attack of a madman (religious or not).
Hezbollah and Hamas recently said that they won't help Iran in a war with Israel.
If a war starts between Iran and Israel, the latter will have his full army and part of its air force to destroy Hezbollah and Hamas, and they know it.
42RM
Banned
When I read this entire post, I will say that "der alte" has one. He has some interesting reviews.
Israeli military planners probably calculate that Hezbollah would attack. They would prefer to preempt such an attack, and at least take out the most dangerous and long-range missiles before they could be launched. That calculation argues for striking Iran and Lebanon simultaneously, in the hope that the first blows would weaken both adversaries and compel an early ceasefire. That means Israeli resources would be stretched from the start with two wars.
The political implications of hitting Iran and Lebanon simultaneously are significant. Sympathy for Persian Iran may be limited in the Arab world, but sympathy for Arab Lebanon would be higher, especially if Israel were to strike first. Israel can expect condemnation from many quarters for any attack on Iran; it would get more if it were also at war with Hezbollah, and bombing Beirut.
The bottom line is that Israeli planners have to contemplate a multifront war from the moment of a strike on Iran. The more variables in any planning process, the more likely you will face unanticipated consequences and unpleasant surprises once the action begins. The devil is always in the details.
Yossarian
Forum Resistance Leader
I don't think Iran would want to so quickly endanger these parties. Not on an buddy buddy basis, but because to Iran, these to NGO's act as Iran's foreign assets in many way.
Supplying Iran with the abilities and resources similar in SOME ways that the U.S. and other western powers have by luxury via a dedicated Special Forces Community that is under control of the goverment.
Iran doesn't have much to be picky choosy over in terms of foriegn support, especially support already on the ground and familiar with a particular area.
senojekips
Active member
No, I'm asking you to stir your own brain and think about what I said for yourself.
You know and I know, that there is no way that the US would allow a potential enemy to develop a nuclear arsenal without arming themselves in a similar manner.