spoken as Ron Paul, the US politician. I hear things like this from some of the US people but in the low percent.
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.
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?
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" In
I think your questions have been answered by Yossarian and Der Alte greatly but my question hasn't been answered yet.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?
I think your questions have been answered by Yossarian and Der Alte greatly but my question hasn't been answered yet.
Why the west countries have thousands nukes? they want those just for defence or they can use those as a threaten ?
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?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.
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.
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.
A German proverb says: “Revolutions that are announced in advance do not take place.”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?
Interesting post.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.
I think your questions have been answered by Yossarian and Der Alte greatly but my question hasn't been answered yet.
Why the west countries have thousands nukes? they want those just for defence or they can use those as a threaten ?
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.
When I read this entire post, I will say that "der alte" has one. He has some interesting reviews.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.
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.
No, I'm asking you to stir your own brain and think about what I said for yourself.huh? So you are saying you want me to re-think history a different way?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.