The Mysterious Iranian Threat

[KJ]

Infact atleast ONE of those excuses are true.
Iran IS funding and supporting Hezbollah.
Iran IS funding and supporting part of the insurgency in Iraq.
So maybe that isn´t just an excuse..

I think the point that every western intellegence agency are making is..
Can we afford to gamble on the Iranian nuclear aspirations are peaceful?
It is a hard question with alot of different sides to it.
Maybe it is but maybe, just maybe alot of enriched uranium floating around a nation with KNOWN ties to terrorist organizations that has NO problem whatsoever attacking civilian populace is a problem...

Everyone will have to decide for themselves what they think.

On another note, why are you so interested in what we think about your country?
I get it everyone wants to feel nationalpride, but this goes above and beyond IMO.
You have asked, we have pretty much answered what we think.
Are you trying to sell us on Iranian propaganda then perhaps you are barking alittle up the wrong tree?

KJ sends..

 

[Der Alte]

Is Iran the boogeyman that American neo-conservatives and Israeli hardliners make it out to be? Surprisingly, it is – but not because of its nuclear program. Iran doesn’t want nuclear weapons to exterminate Jews; rather, Iran wants to increase its ability to project power and influence across the Persian Gulf.

This is the real problem with Iran: it has the potential to project enormous influence in the Gulf through conventional (and in the future, nuclear) means, but it cannot do so while Americans remain stationed in Iraq. As such, Iran has been working to destabilise Iraq and to encourage the United States to leave – which finally, it is. The ensuing Iraqi power vacuum, once filled by Saddam Hussein’s Sunni minority, can now be filled by Iran-friendly Shiites. With Iraq as a hapless buffer state, Iran will be free to project its influence throughout the entire Gulf. This is not a far-fetched idea – the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war just so that he could act as a buffer against Iranian expansion.

That’s why the concern of the Gulf states isn’t really Israel (which, for all intents and purposes, is an enemy in public rhetoric only), but a Shiite Iran seeking to increase its sphere of influence in a region increasingly devoid of American troops. It is this fear of Iranian expansionism which has prompted the furious battle over Bahrain, a majority Shiite population ruled by a Saudi-friendly Sunni minority. Iran has very likely been fuelling the riots across the small island nation in the hope of encouraging regime change, a Shiite and Iran-friendly government, and thereby gaining an opening to project its influence in neighbouring Saudi Arabia. That’s also why the Saudis moved forcefully to support the Bahraini government in fending off protestors, and why the West watched silently. The rights of a few protestors in a tiny Middle Eastern nation are a small price to pay for holding back Iranian influence.

The growth of Iranian power is not just a Middle Eastern affair, either. Remember: Iran has a considerable naval presence in the Gulf, and with it, the ability to lay mines in the Strait of Hormuz, a channel for over two-thirds of the world’s oil supplies. To do so might be contrary to Iran’s immediate self-interest but it provides Iran with bargaining power, a kill-switch against any threats. This, in addition to the development of nuclear weapons, would present enormous complications in any attempt to take action against Iran in the future.

Does this sound like a nuclear, nation-state version of a suicide bomber? We need to stop seeing Iran as an unstable, fundamentalist regime itching to take out Israel. Only then will we see the real problem that it poses.

 

[hamidreza]

[FONT=&quot]A few days ago in Iran and 5+1 group negotiations in Baghdad Mr. Jalili, the lead of Iranian negotiators, said to the 5+1 group: Do you know where we are? We are in the Saddam’s palace, the person you help him 30 years ago in Iran-Iraq war by the German leopard tanks, the UK Chieftain tanks, the French Exocet missiles and Mirage and Super Étendard fighters, the Russian Scat B missiles and Mig aircrafts, the German and England chemical bombs, The US sidewinder missiles and AWACS aircrafts, The Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar dollars and the Palestinian, Yemeni and the other Arab soldiers. At that time we were almost alone but we didn’t surrender. Now Saddam was killed, the Iraqi people are free and the Iraq leaders are our strategic friends. We are much stronger than before so do you expect we regardless of our legal rights about nuclear energy?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]And about the Persian Gulf I think if someone comes from another planet and read your text he maybe thought the Persian Gulf is somewhere full of the oil and is near the US or Europe and the Iranian are the people who want to make nuclear weapon to threaten the US or the Europeans to rob their oil!! [/FONT]

 

[MontyB]

Is Iran the boogeyman that American neo-conservatives and Israeli hardliners make it out to be? Surprisingly, it is – but not because of its nuclear program. Iran doesn’t want nuclear weapons to exterminate Jews; rather, Iran wants to increase its ability to project power and influence across the Persian Gulf.

This is the real problem with Iran: it has the potential to project enormous influence in the Gulf through conventional (and in the future, nuclear) means, but it cannot do so while Americans remain stationed in Iraq. As such, Iran has been working to destabilise Iraq and to encourage the United States to leave – which finally, it is. The ensuing Iraqi power vacuum, once filled by Saddam Hussein’s Sunni minority, can now be filled by Iran-friendly Shiites. With Iraq as a hapless buffer state, Iran will be free to project its influence throughout the entire Gulf. This is not a far-fetched idea – the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war just so that he could act as a buffer against Iranian expansion.

That’s why the concern of the Gulf states isn’t really Israel (which, for all intents and purposes, is an enemy in public rhetoric only), but a Shiite Iran seeking to increase its sphere of influence in a region increasingly devoid of American troops. It is this fear of Iranian expansionism which has prompted the furious battle over Bahrain, a majority Shiite population ruled by a Saudi-friendly Sunni minority. Iran has very likely been fuelling the riots across the small island nation in the hope of encouraging regime change, a Shiite and Iran-friendly government, and thereby gaining an opening to project its influence in neighbouring Saudi Arabia. That’s also why the Saudis moved forcefully to support the Bahraini government in fending off protestors, and why the West watched silently. The rights of a few protestors in a tiny Middle Eastern nation are a small price to pay for holding back Iranian influence.

The growth of Iranian power is not just a Middle Eastern affair, either. Remember: Iran has a considerable naval presence in the Gulf, and with it, the ability to lay mines in the Strait of Hormuz, a channel for over two-thirds of the world’s oil supplies. To do so might be contrary to Iran’s immediate self-interest but it provides Iran with bargaining power, a kill-switch against any threats. This, in addition to the development of nuclear weapons, would present enormous complications in any attempt to take action against Iran in the future.

Does this sound like a nuclear, nation-state version of a suicide bomber? We need to stop seeing Iran as an unstable, fundamentalist regime itching to take out Israel. Only then will we see the real problem that it poses.

I agree entirely but in the end it is just Iran playing the same games the rest of the world is playing and being somewhat successful at it.

As far as Iranian power projection goes surely even that is limited much in the way Saddam Hussein's power was, the second they leap the border the oil loving west will be on their arse's like white on rice so all that is available to them is covert action and subterfuge and in all honesty if Middle Eastern nations are so fragile that they collapse over that then perhaps they should not have existed in the first place.

To a limited extent I think Iran's rise in the region should be seen by other nations in the region as a trigger for change, to strengthen and advance the freedoms they offer their people in order to prevent insurrection.

 

[VDKMS]

Is Iran the boogeyman that American neo-conservatives and Israeli hardliners make it out to be? Surprisingly, it is – but not because of its nuclear program. Iran doesn’t want nuclear weapons to exterminate Jews; rather, Iran wants to increase its ability to project power and influence across the Persian Gulf.

This is the real problem with Iran: it has the potential to project enormous influence in the Gulf through conventional (and in the future, nuclear) means, but it cannot do so while Americans remain stationed in Iraq. As such, Iran has been working to destabilise Iraq and to encourage the United States to leave – which finally, it is. The ensuing Iraqi power vacuum, once filled by Saddam Hussein’s Sunni minority, can now be filled by Iran-friendly Shiites. With Iraq as a hapless buffer state, Iran will be free to project its influence throughout the entire Gulf. This is not a far-fetched idea – the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war just so that he could act as a buffer against Iranian expansion.

That’s why the concern of the Gulf states isn’t really Israel (which, for all intents and purposes, is an enemy in public rhetoric only), but a Shiite Iran seeking to increase its sphere of influence in a region increasingly devoid of American troops. It is this fear of Iranian expansionism which has prompted the furious battle over Bahrain, a majority Shiite population ruled by a Saudi-friendly Sunni minority. Iran has very likely been fuelling the riots across the small island nation in the hope of encouraging regime change, a Shiite and Iran-friendly government, and thereby gaining an opening to project its influence in neighbouring Saudi Arabia. That’s also why the Saudis moved forcefully to support the Bahraini government in fending off protestors, and why the West watched silently. The rights of a few protestors in a tiny Middle Eastern nation are a small price to pay for holding back Iranian influence.

The growth of Iranian power is not just a Middle Eastern affair, either. Remember: Iran has a considerable naval presence in the Gulf, and with it, the ability to lay mines in the Strait of Hormuz, a channel for over two-thirds of the world’s oil supplies. To do so might be contrary to Iran’s immediate self-interest but it provides Iran with bargaining power, a kill-switch against any threats. This, in addition to the development of nuclear weapons, would present enormous complications in any attempt to take action against Iran in the future.

Does this sound like a nuclear, nation-state version of a suicide bomber? We need to stop seeing Iran as an unstable, fundamentalist regime itching to take out Israel. Only then will we see the real problem that it poses.

I do not totally disagree with this opinion article from Sam Murray in The Sydney Globalist but in my opinion he minimizes, if not disregards, the religious aspect to much. Everything Iran does must pas a veto from the almighty clerics (ask Ahmadinejad). The clerics also have a very powerful army themselves called the Revolutionary Guards, including the Quds and Basij forces.
Who was propably working on a military nuclear device? Right, the Revolutinary Guard. No General of the other Armed forces, nor the government has any power over that force. The reason for their existence? To protect the country's Islamic system, IOW : Shiism. They call non-muslims and Sunnis heretics and believe that only they are the guardians of Mekka.
The Iranian clerics are fanatics but not stupid. They use the quds forces to stir trouble in non shiite countries but cannot be bold enough for large attacks, fearing retaliation from the west. But once they have a nuclear weapon the can defend themselves from retaliation.
Which western government dares to ignore an Iranian nuclear threat to destroy their capital if they decide to retaliate?

Iran will not use a nuclear device to directly attack their opponents (the west) but to use it as an defensive umbrella to safeguard their military expansion of Shiism. Do not forget that Islam almost always expanded by military force.

 

[hamidreza]

VDKMS:
I do not totally disagree with this opinion article from Sam Murray in The Sydney Globalist but in my opinion he minimizes, if not disregards, the religious aspect to much. Everything Iran does must pas a veto from the almighty clerics (ask Ahmadinejad). The clerics also have a very powerful army themselves called the Revolutionary Guards, including the Quds and Basij forces.
Who was propably working on a military nuclear device? Right, the Revolutinary Guard. No General of the other Armed forces, nor the government has any power over that force. The reason for their existence? To protect the country's Islamic system, IOW : Shiism. They call non-muslims and Sunnis heretics and believe that only they are the guardians of Mekka.
The Iranian clerics are fanatics but not stupid. They use the quds forces to stir trouble in non shiite countries but cannot be bold enough for large attacks, fearing retaliation from the west. But once they have a nuclear weapon the can defend themselves from retaliation.
Which western government dares to ignore an Iranian nuclear threat to destroy their capital if they decide to retaliate?

Iran will not use a nuclear device to directly attack their opponents (the west) but to use it as an defensive umbrella to safeguard their military expansion of Shiism. Do not forget that Islam almost always expanded by military force.

There is no tax for these kinds of stories. If I wrote story about the Zionist danger for the world as you wrote about the Shiism, I’d write stories more frightening than yours. They are just about 14 million people but they make upset the entire world. Like a small cancer which kill a strong body. They control the large powers and abuse them to reach their illegitimate interests. Don’t they? How many of the congress delegates and the Senators of the US are their hireling?
If you look at the history you can find easily how they were hated not just for Muslims but also before Islam and even before Christianity. History proves my opinion.

 

[RayManKiller3]

There is no tax for these kinds of stories. If I wrote story about the Zionist danger for the world as you wrote about the Shiism, I’d write stories more frightening than yours. They are just about 14 million people but they make upset the entire world. Like a small cancer which kill a strong body. They control the large powers and abuse them to reach their illegitimate interests. Don’t they? How many of the congress delegates and the Senators of the US are their hireling?
If you look at the history you can find easily how they were hated not just for Muslims but also before Islam and even before Christianity. History proves my opinion.

Israel make upset the entire world? Exaggerating buddy.

As far as danger stories I believe more comes from muslim theocratic states than Israel at the moment.

The history you chant is full of stupidity when people thought only their god existed and would kill you if you do not believe it. Christain and Islamic people were just as hated in those times.

 

[MontyB]

Iran will not use a nuclear device to directly attack their opponents (the west) but to use it as an defensive umbrella to safeguard their military expansion of Shiism. Do not forget that Islam almost always expanded by military force.

Oh come on Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Communism, Capitalism, Socialism, Fascism, Tribalism and any other "ism" you care to throw in there has expanded through military force hell I am pretty sure that if Pacifism thought it could expand through war we would be tripping over militant pacifists as well.

The only thing a nuclear device will safeguard is the existing regime in Iran and that will only last as long as they don't use it.

 

[RayManKiller3]

The only thing a nuclear device will safeguard is the existing regime in Iran and that will only last as long as they don't use it.

I agree on this and you basically agreed with VDKMS when you said this. They won't need to use the nuclear weapon, all they need is to have it and keep enemies guessing if they would use it or not, therefore allowing them to do anything they pleased so long as no one felt it was a major risk to intervene. Why do you think the Soviets were able to do what they do and U.S as well?

Considering it, I think Iran wants a great influence spread in the M.E.

 

[MontyB]

I agree on this and you basically agreed with VDKMS when you said this. They won't need to use the nuclear weapon, all they need is to have it and keep enemies guessing if they would use it or not, therefore allowing them to do anything they pleased so long as no one felt it was a major risk to intervene. Why do you think the Soviets were able to do what they do and U.S as well?

Considering it, I think Iran wants a great influence spread in the M.E.

What the hell have you been drinking?

There is no threat or "keep them guessing" policy to nuclear weapons, the USA lost in Vietnam but didn't nuke it, the Soviet Union lost in Afghanistan and did not nuke it either, why?

Because nuclear arsenals are there to protect the status quo and the only threat they pose is one of a last resort weapon, in other words there only value is as a "if I am going down I am taking you with me" weapon.

A thousand nuclear weapons will not give Iran any more power in the middle east than it has already simply because to use them means their own destruction.

 

[hamidreza]

Originally Posted by RayManKiller3
They won't need to use the nuclear weapon, all they need is to have it and keep enemies guessing if they would use it or not, therefore allowing them to do anything they pleased so long as no one felt it was a major risk to intervene.

well it is not bad and is good progress because you were always telling Iran will use nukes to wipe out Israel and the other countries when they make it.And now tell me why you should have the nukes to do anything you pleased but the other countries shouldn't? who gives you this right?

 

[RayManKiller3]

What the hell have you been drinking?

There is no threat or "keep them guessing" policy to nuclear weapons, the USA lost in Vietnam but didn't nuke it, the Soviet Union lost in Afghanistan and did not nuke it either, why?

Because nuclear arsenals are there to protect the status quo and the only threat they pose is one of a last resort weapon, in other words there only value is as a "if I am going down I am taking you with me" weapon.

A thousand nuclear weapons will not give Iran any more power in the middle east than it has already simply because to use them means their own destruction.

You are using wars that don't fit as examples, Monty. Nuclear weapons only serve as defense and yes they will certainly have a "keep them guessing" policy if they decide to get nukes. This occured with U.S and the Soviets:

"Is U.S going to intervene directly if I do this?"
"Are the Soviets going to intervene if I do this?"

Hell, we had to tell the Soviets that we meant no advances on them before we went into Vietnam and they had to tell us they would not intervene if we went to save South Korea during the Korean War.

Yes: Nuclear weapons certainly have a "keep them guessing" policy as no one will risk attacking a nuclear state because they won't know if they would use nukes first.

I think you were the one drinking if you thought I said they were a threat. I already said in other threads that I do not believe Iran is a direct threat to U.S even if they had nukes. I just don't believe they should obtain them simply because of NPT which is how they got their nuclear technology in the first place.


hamidreza:

well it is not bad and is good progress because you were always telling Iran will use nukes to wipe out Israel and the other countries when they make it.And now tell me why you should have the nukes to do anything you pleased but the other countries shouldn't? who gives you this right?

What the heck are you talking about? I am for nuclear disarmament of all countries that signed NPT, which is every single country except Israel, Pakistan, and India (not counting North Korea because they were once signatories). U.S and the Soviets have been steadily declining their nuclear weapons stockpiles from 60,000 (for Soviets) and 30,000 (for U.S) or so to 6,000. Do you think they should unilaterally destroy their nuke stockpiles? That would be a stupid move. Not to mention it would be hard to persuade citizens to disarm while other countries are trying to arm.


"You was always telling Iran will use nukes to wipe out Israel" - This is incorrect. I never stated anything of the sort. I am not sure if Iran would be stupid enough to use nuclear weapons IF it obtains one. I do not believe Iran is trying to obtain it either at this moment.

The fact is Iran signed NPT so they are not allowed to gain nuclear weapons. Why do you believe India never signed NPT? "because it allowed nuclear states to keep their nuclear weapons and those that aren't nuclear will not be able to obtain one" according to them. Once Iran signed NPT it was fate that the U.N would complain if they suspected wishes for nuclear weapons, as the technology was shared.

 

[hamidreza]

RayManKiller3:
What the heck are you talking about? I am for nuclear disarmament of all countries that signed NPT, which is every single country except Israel, Pakistan, and India (not counting North Korea because they were once signatories). U.S and the Soviets have been steadily declining their nuclear weapons stockpiles from 60,000 (for Soviets) and 30,000 (for U.S) or so to 6,000. Do you think they should unilaterally destroy their nuke stockpiles? That would be a stupid move. Not to mention it would be hard to persuade citizens to disarm while other countries are trying to arm.

You trust to your politician but I never trust to them. They wont destroy their nukes unless they find a new weapon much stronger than nukes.

"You was always telling Iran will use nukes to wipe out Israel" - This is incorrect. I never stated anything of the sort. I am not sure if Iran would be stupid enough to use nuclear weapons IF it obtains one. I do not believe Iran is trying to obtain it either at this moment.

The fact is Iran signed NPT so they are not allowed to gain nuclear weapons. Why do you believe India never signed NPT? "because it allowed nuclear states to keep their nuclear weapons and those that aren't nuclear will not be able to obtain one" according to them. Once Iran signed NPT it was fate that the U.N would complain if they suspected wishes for nuclear weapons, as the technology was shared.

Iran signed NPT and was committed to don't make nukes and instead the IAEA was committed to help Iran in nuclear technology, helps Iran to have enrichment technology and gives Iran enriched uranium. In fact they are committed to give the peacefully nuclear technology to everyone who signed the NPT.
Now IAEA is suspected to our nuclear activities and we suspected to their independence and honestly. They say we may use enrichment technology to make nukes in future and we say they haven't helped us in nuclear knowledge, they haven't sold us the 20% enriched uranium, they follow the west policies and their behavior is political not legal. they don't trust us and we don't trust them so isn't it a good decision if we cut our relation with IAEA like a couple who want to divorce? the same as Israel. So there will be no question, there will be no supervision and we also won't request and disturb them for any help!

Another question. why the countries who are member of IAEA,except that west, don't have nuclear technology? all of technology that one of them is enrichment technology. they don't need or there some news is behind the scenes we are not aware?

 

[VDKMS]

Oh come on Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Communism, Capitalism, Socialism, Fascism, Tribalism and any other "ism" you care to throw in there has expanded through military force hell I am pretty sure that if Pacifism thought it could expand through war we would be tripping over militant pacifists as well.

The only thing a nuclear device will safeguard is the existing regime in Iran and that will only last as long as they don't use it.

Christianity, Judaism, Communism, Capitalism and Socialism expanded peacefully.
Fascism is nationalistic. Tribalism to small to expand. Only Islam expanded through military means. Their military expansion was halted twice in Europe. The Turks were beaten at the doors of Vienna and the mighty Islamic Cavalry was beaten by the Frankish infantery in France.

 

[VDKMS]

A nuclear free world (I think that we all want that) will not happen. The conventional American forces are to strong for Russia or China to become non nuclear powers.

IF we had a nuclear free world, sooner or later someone would build the bom and the race would start again.

The more nuclear powers the higher the chance for a nuclear war.

On January 25, 1995 a scientific Norwegian rocket alsmost started armageddon. The Norwegians informed everyone of the launch but the Russians didn't do anything with it so the Russian military thought is was a US first strike and asked permission to Jeltsin to retaliate. Fortunately Jeltsin was 100% sure that the US wouldn't do such a thing and forbid a retaliation. Ever wondered what would have happened to the world if the Russians would have retaliated?

The Iranian military nuclear program? It's outside the control of the government. The forces working on it are under direct control of the clerics.
Is the IAEA and the 5+1 group in talks with the clerics or the Iranian government?

Last but not least, a Muslim is allowed to lie to a non muslim (taqiyya and kitman).

 

[MontyB]

Christianity, Judaism, Communism, Capitalism and Socialism expanded peacefully.
Fascism is nationalistic. Tribalism to small to expand. Only Islam expanded through military means. Their military expansion was halted twice in Europe. The Turks were beaten at the doors of Vienna and the mighty Islamic Cavalry was beaten by the Frankish infantery in France.

So you are going to persist with the idea that ignoring the bits of history that do not fit your argument gives you a balanced understanding of the world?

Unlike Spike I know when an argument isn't worth fighting because your opponent clearly can't see the forest for the trees so please for your own benefit go away re-read those history books but this time try opening both eyes then perhaps we can have intelligent discussion on these issues rather than an ideological one.

In short please accept that I probably won't be responding to any more of your posts on this issue not because I agree or you have defeated me but because I think you are so blinded by your own idealogical issues that it is not worth responding.

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

Christianity, Judaism, Communism, Capitalism and Socialism expanded peacefully.
Fascism is nationalistic. Tribalism to small to expand. Only Islam expanded through military means. Their military expansion was halted twice in Europe. The Turks were beaten at the doors of Vienna and the mighty Islamic Cavalry was beaten by the Frankish infantery in France.

The different ideologies have not spread peacefully; further, you cannot compare social ideologies with theological ideologies. Capitalism is not an ideology, it is an economic system and so is Communism, which has never occurred.

 

[hamidreza]

VDKMS didn't really want to have a comparison among different isms or ideologies. he just was looking for an opportunity to say somethings against Islam or shi.

 

[senojekips]

Unlike Spike I know when an argument isn't worth fighting because your opponent clearly can't see the forest for the trees so please for your own benefit go away re-read those history books but this time try opening both eyes then perhaps we can have intelligent discussion on these issues rather than an ideological one.

Being a relatively determined type of character :wink: I have rarely let the blind ignorance and stupidity of others deter me greatly. I suppose that I live in the hope that there is perhaps some slim chance that deep within that lump of solid ivory they call a head, there may be one single neural synapse that will fire sooner or later. However, once people get to denying that they have said something, regardless of the fact that it is there in black and white for all to see, I just put him on ignore. Not even I can argue with blind denial.

He's a total waste of space, an oxygen thief.

 

[Yossarian]

And thus the world keeps turning....