What should the West do about Iran?

[Anonymous2]

OK, the War on Terror thread almost turned into the equivalent of a fistfight at times but I think we had a rather good discussion going on in the beginning. So here's the next hot issue which might actually become even more important to the Western world: Iran seems determined to ignore a lot of countries' concerns and to continue its nuclear program.
http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/2005/08/17/afx2183501.html

What do you think is the next step the Western countries should take? Military threats? Continued talks? Let's see if this is less controversial.

 

[hedgehog]

I do not normally find myself defending GWB but when he stated that America reserves the right to use force, I will agree. Every president has the right to use force, the question is when is this choice made and what are the consequences of these actions. I sincerely hope that this crisis does not end in violence, but judging by the actions of the newly elected government of Iran I fear we are heading towards a dangerous precipice.

The crisis over Iran does not happen in a vacuum though. Decisively siding with the Iranians is the People's Republic of China against the intrests of the West. This needs to be considered by the governments of the EU who are actively seeking to end arms sanctions against the PRC. In the past, the West (and the US in particular) more than likely whould have given a big :thefinger to the Chinese, but there have been several not so subtle hints that the Chinese would be willing to unload a sizable portion of their US Treasuries holdings, which could effectively devestate the US economy.

As to the specifics of the Iranian reactors and how much time before the Iranians can manufacture enough fissionable material to make a bomb, worst case scenerio 2 and a half years, to a more reasonable 5 years. Now I know that there are still some people who believe that Iran is only working on energy production as opposed to weapons production, but answer me this why would a country with the second largest fossil fuel reserves bother with nuclear power?

 

[Peter Gazinya]

What do you think is the next step the Western countries should take? Military threats? Continued talks? Let's see if this is less controversial.

Nothing, of course. It's not like every country in the middle east is a threat to us (us = the western world). Just let these guys do whatever they want because they're not going to hurt us as long as we take the time to understand their religion and show some compassion for the plight of their people. Talking and open, caring dialog are the only way to a nice peaceful co-existence with these nations. After all they are just people too and they harbor no ill will toward the western world. It's just that they don't understand us sometimes and occasionally some of their people bomb some of our buildings or blow up our subways. But that's no big deal, if we just keep talking to them, reassuring them that we're making our best efforts to understand their different culture, then everything should be okay and their people will soon realize that it's not nice to blow up other people.

But then again maybe nothing is the wrong thing to do. I think it would be very helpful in promoting global unity if we were to remove all things "Western" from the entire Middle East region. Get rid of McDonalds and cell phones, stop shipping over Coca Cola, and certainly do them the favor of not shipping any more of that evil pornography over there. The thing is, when those people see these Western conveniences and tolerances for certain enjoyable things then they get all confused. You see, their upbringing is one centered around deferrence to a mythical being in the sky by which all things good or bad can be justified. And when they see all these new fun and exciting things but are told that their mythical deity dissapproves of these comforts, they get all upset and jealous of us. And we have to understand that when someone gets upset and jealous they are going to act out in horribly violent ways and it is our job to understand we caused them to do it. So if we can completely "De-Westernized" the region, then everything will be just fine and these formerly brutally violent people will just leave us alone. Of course that will mean they will be left without indoor plumbing, motorized transportation, and all forms of electronic communication. But that's okay 'cause it'll be just like they took a time machine back to the 1980's and everybody loves the '80s.

Now, as sure as I am that these ideas are just gonna work out super peachy keen, I do think it might be wise to develop a back up plan, just in case. And the back up plan of course is... the United Nations. It is no one nation's duty to ensure their own security when the United Nations does such a flawless job of it. The UN should probably impose some sort of sanctions against Iran if they continue to develop the means to destroy the entire globe. They should also have periodic inspections of these sites in Iran where they're making stuff capable of ending all human life. And when Iran continues to ignore the directive's of the UN then the UN should just ignore it altogether and allow Iran to continue what they're doing. After all, it's not like Iran is going to use these nefarious weapons for their own sinister ways. So after about 8-10 years of Iran completely ignoring the UN and the UN doing absolutely nothing about it then it's probably time the UN decides it should send some representatives over there to see that, in fact, Iran would never do anything harmful to the Western world. And the best way to find that out would be to send some high level UN officers over to meet with and receive enormous bribes from Iran's high ranking officials.

See, there's nothing to worry about.

 

[sjs1220]

Vegas, thanks for having faith in that this will continue to be good discussion!

First, let me say that Iran is one of the capitals of terrorism. It is important to not let them get nuclear weapons that they will just sell to terrorists. Now, of course we should not allow this to happen so as not to be attacked ourselves, but so as not to let any other country be attacked too. You see, conservatives are compasionate too. As to how we should do this. Well, use force as last resort. We should exhaust all other possibilities first. As for those who will say... "Well, why didn't we do that with Iraq?" Plain and simply, we did. 10+ years of sactions, a war and another set of bombings (by Bill Clinton) did not work. For those who now say They worked! There were no WMD's in Iraq!" You are wrong again. There might not have been nuclear weapons or bio agents (bio agents would truly be near impossible to find if they do exist), there was missing Sarin, and other nerve agents, illegal missles, and other weapons found that had sactions against them. You see the whole WMD=Nuclear Weapons/Bio agents thing came from the mainstream media. According to the UN and Bush, Cruz missles are a WMD, and so are nerve agents. In turn, the same type of issues have to be considered with Iran.

Peter, you make some great points! I just hope people will see your sarcasm (and hopefully I did not see sarcasm where there was none).

Hedgehog, your point about an oil producing company needing nuclear power... It is fantastic!!!

 

[QuestionMark]

what worries me is that you speak as if this all out invasion of iraq worked...
it was a complete failure. People are constatly dying there(solidiers and civilians) more they did before the invasion. I don't call that success!
And when someone says "we'll use force as last resort"... it's weird because when stated like that it sounds that "using force" is the only thing one their mind....it sounds like he can't wait to use force. If he said "as long as there is a chance for peacful solution we will pursue it"...or something along this lines it would sound as if they are honestly interested in a peacful solution.
"we'll use force as last resort"...sounds too much like... "i can't wait for christmas to open my presents"

 

[niky 6]

i don't understand!
first the west give money,guns,and military specialist to Iran,to win the fight against Irak,after west drop bombs in Irak,what about Iran?they have guns!nuclear one!!!how we know that?, we give them,like we give to irak,i see the president of France on that time:Jacques Chirac,telling that France give a nuclear reactor to Irak but to produce electricity,of course can produce nuclear bombs to,but who cares!?when crisis of oil was big in Europe and Irak give oil with low price;i see german company,what bild factory of chimicals in Irak,telling that is for pharmaceutics produce,ofcorse can produce chemical bombs to!,but again who care?oil is oil;i see ambasador of Arabia Saudita,telling that bin laden thanks to America for suport against Irak(befor events of 11 sept.)!and i am sure you can find more declarations,and more what we don't know about!
now,i still don't understand we sale the guns and than we accuse that they have guns!!!!!!!!!???????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!is ironic or what??!!
another question:why they have nuclear bombs?attack or defence?
when i got a little, i attack one what have more,but when i have more than others(Irak and Iran are big(pl.) producers of oil in the world,Kuweit to),why?maybe if i am crazy like hitler or stalin,and i want to bild empire!
another one:if they got so many bombs and guns,why they put children to "drop"artificial bombs ,why they don't fight(maybe don't know to use inteligent guns?),they shot and run?strange they have nuclear bombs,guns that make be afrait the greathest nation of the world,and they use this strategy? ooo ,where are those dangerous guns and bombs of Irak?well they don't have'it!,i kill you and then say : ooooo,sorry you're "innocent" , i hear this before..........stalin?!
ok,was Irak,come Iran,who's next?give a search on the richest country in: oil , diamonds,gold,etc.you'll find the answer!
my "pop" opinion is that:we have to leave them in peace,to pay for oil or to find another source of carburant,maybe the sun ,they are not countrys of terorrists,they are people like us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,i belive they are guilty just because they have oil!
( sorry for spelling and grammar )

 

[niky 6]

ooo,my opinion: www.coltz.net/nicu/bomb_for_peace.jpg

 

[Red Spyder]

I think the whole Middle East needs to be CTRL + ALT + DELeted.

The West has made some major screw ups in that area, and this coming from a guy who is to the right of Rummsfeld on foreign affairs (Ashcroft/Rummsfeld for 08!! :thumbsup: haha I can see all the lefties around here squirm). Putting the Shah in power even though the Iranians had a popularly elected leader right before him, was one of those, after all, that's what led to the Islamic Revolution, as the people of Iran, rightly or wrongly, saw the Shah as a puppet of the great satan. But I guess that they should also know that since we are different they should also try to understand us, why is it that we are the only ones that need to understand everybody? I guess we see things from a more simple point of view. We get along with anyone who wants to get along with us and we want everyone who gets along with us to get along among themselves, yet they don't seem to grasp that. So we get along with Israel. We also get along with Jordan. Israel and Jordan... well at least they signed a peace treaty. Saddam Hussein is gone, so are our troops from Saudi Arabia which was one of Al Quaida's rallying cries, "U.S. out of Saudi Arabia". To me it seems like a good trade. We get out of Saudi Arabia, but we get to take out Saddam. They want us out of Iraq? Sure, let's get out of Iraq, just let us establish a representative government there, seems like another good trade, why don't they seem to grasp that? For them what is wrong with a representative government? A government that is of the people, by the people, and for the people? "Well, only Islam is important" if that is so, then why do they care whether Iraq becomes a democracy? Democratic countries here in the west respect their religion when they come and live over here. We bend over backwards not to offend them and what gratitude do they show? A couple of planes into two of our bigges buildings and killing around 3000 people. Oh, well, what goes around comes around.

Even though our cultures are completely different, I still believe that human nature yearns for freedom, to be left alone to live life in peace, after all even terrorists, as brainwashed as they are, are fighting for a cause that supposedly will lead to peace for them (which will not as even if they defeat Israel, the U.S. and all western democracies they will still fight among themselves as to what branch of Islam is the one true faith. So even if we all infidels were gone, war among Muslims would not be gone, you'd have Arab Sunnis against Persian (Iranian) Shiites, Arab Shiites against Kurdish Sunnis, Kurdish Sunnis against Persian Sunnis, and Wahabbis against everyone).

I guess what we need is a complete "reboot" in the middle east, start over somehow. Problem is that as even among muslim and arab nations they don't trust each other, anyone of them that "sees the light" and starts working with us westerners for peace, will be seen as infidel collaborators by the rest of the other groups, as the Shiites in Iraq are seen by the Sunnis. So as much as I try to think of any peaceful solution to all problems there, it seems there isn't any. I mean, when you have an enemy that is willing to blow himself up as long as he kills you, well, you just can't negotiate with someone who is being completely irrational, because I think just about everyone can agree that blowing yourself up isn't the action of someone who is being rational. Just like me as I'm kinda sleepy now and I also got a headache trying to get into their heads, so peace out!

 

[hedgehog]

Peter come on, no one is suggesting that we coddle Iran. If I point out that there is a historical argument that there is a direct line from British Colonial Rule in Iran to the toppling of the democratically elected government by a CIA coup to a hugely corrupt and dictatorial monarchy to the rise of fundamentalism and say that the past mistakes of the West in some way have led directly to this crisis I feel that I am completely within the bounds of reasonable discourse. But for you to assert that I in some way feel that the rest of the world should get on its knees and fellate those dictatorial powers in the Middle East is beyond the pale.

Remember it was not liberals who permitted the families of Osama Bin Laden and several other prominent Saudis to leave the country with only a cursory passport check. I personally detest the Saudi government and its abuses of human rights, as I detest those of Iran, Syria, Uzbekistan, or Indonesia. Your satirical argument suggests (and if I am putting words in your mouth I apologize, I am merely making an antithecal argument) that cultural genocide is the only answer to the threat of Islamic fundamentalism. Force these people to accept our way of life, as to the consequences of refusal I suspect that you haven't even considered that.

To Red Spyder, man get real the Shah was not booted out of power simply because of our involvement in his coup. The people hated the Shah because of the excesses of his rule, the fear of the SAVAK storming a house or a mosque in the middle of the night, people disappearing. As to them trying to understand us, they do think they understand us, to them we are a country which treats the rest of the world as inferiors, a country which is deceitful, one that supports the most oppressive of regimes when it suits us only to pontificate on our own righteousness. It is very easy to disregard these facts and just say that “libruls” just hate America.

If you want to make an argument based on principle, fine, the US should be in Iraq to attempt to spread democracy, but what makes Iraq any more worthy of US intervention than say Zimbabwe, which is crumbling under Robert Mugabe? George W. Bush himself said on November 6th, 2000, “Let me tell you what else I’m worried about: I’m worried about an opponent [Al Gore] who uses nation building and the military in the same sentaence. See, our view of the military is for our military to be properly prepared to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place.” Was it the vast number of people killed by Saddam? If so why the hell are we not on the ground in Dafur, Sudan where people are still dying every day? You point to Israel, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia as allies in the Middle East but neglect the fact that both Jordan and Saudi Arabia are repressive monarchies where basic freedoms are restricted. And as to Israel, the suffering of the Jews throughout history is a sad story, but I refuse to believe that that suffering excuses the mistreatment of the Palestineans. You can say oh, they are protecting themselves from terror, but when they bulldoze whole villages and refugee camps for the actions of one person that hardly seems fair to me.

Quite simply, you cannot discuss Middle Eastern foreign policy without first stating the West has been riding the Middle East, hard for a century (a case could be made going back to the Crusades) without the benefit of lube or reach around.

Solutions coming next...

P.S. Rumsfeld/Ascroft??? Okay you want the architech of this debacle in Iraq to lead us? And Ashcroft, we're talking about the guy so far to the right he had to spend $8000 of tax payer money to drap a sash on a STATUTE, because her breasts were showing. Since you post here I thought you liked porn, yet you embrace the politics of man opposed to it...

 

[hedgehog]

There are no easy answers as to how to proceed.

1) Surgical Air Strikes - Could be effective, the Iranian air defenses, although far superior to anything Iraq had, would not likely be able to stop a coordinated attack on any and all nuclear facilities.

Pros – Eliminate the facility, minimal loss of life
Cons – Difficult to know if we’ve hit every facility, any military strike could lead to Iran attacking our troops in Iraq, a further increase in Iranian sponsored terrorism against the US

2) Ground Invasion and Occupation – Iran is a much larger country than Iraq with a population of 68 million as opposed to the 28 million of Iraq, most whom are of fighting age. We would still retain our technological advantage, but with our continued need for presence in Iraq we would stretch our forces very thin. Our recruiting problems would more than likely necessitate a draft.

Pros – Eliminate all facilities, known or otherwise
Cons – High loss of life, difficult to justify the removal of democratically elected regime simply because we do not agree with them, further suspicions in other states of American imperialism

3) Sanctions – Difficult to enforce, the second largest supplier of oil, and reduction in supplies would send prices well above the $80.00/barrel mark possibly approaching $100.00. Securing the borders to the west would require further deployments of US troops in Iraq, while additional troops would also have to be stationed in Afghanistan. This still leaves the Iranian – Turkmenistan border in addition to the Pakistan border

Pros – (I’m at a loss on this one) I’d normally state no loss of life but it is usually the case that the most innocent suffer the most as a result of sanctions.
Cons – China has already indicated it will oppose any sanctions on Iran and will support its right to continue research.

 

[Cybie]

What should the West do about Iran?

Nothing of course! As long as countries like the USA, France etc. have nuclear weapons, they have no moral right to prevent other countries from developing their own.

So first step should be to destroy already existing nuclear weapons!

 

[Peter Gazinya]

Hedge-

I took a long time typing my completely satirical post and I want you to know yours hadn't even shown up on my screen until after I posted mine. So anything I wrote was in no way a response to your very clear and informed posts. Actually I keep trying to rep you for having by far the most knowledge on these subjects and writing with no axe to grind (a skill I admit I need to polish up on).

My saracastic post wasn't just written for my own shits and giggles, though. It was written to show that I really think there is no solution. We could lay down and let the UN fuck things up, like we did for 10 years in Iraq or we could fuck it up 100 times worse by doing what we're doing now in Iraq.

With his seemingly extensive knowledge on the history and current affairs in the region, Hedgehog is by far the most informed on this subject. As knowledgeable and concise his views on the subject are, I'm not so sure the best policy wasn't just mentioned by Cybie. It's a case of if you're not going to do the job to the fullest extent, then don't do it at all. Let's face it, we need that region for it oil, or our lives as we know it comes to an end. That's why we don't do shit about Zimbabwe, Sudan, or anywhere else where people are dying but not next to a huge pile of fossil fuels. But we can either dick around with halfhearted efforts, stretch our military far too thin, lose soldiers on an hourly basis, and continue building global ill will or do one of too things:

1. Wipe out the entire region and take all the oil we want, after all that's the only reason we give one flying fuck about the place. The U.S. is not good at occupying and policing other countries. It is not one of our strengths. We couldn't do it in Vietnam, and we're just shitting down our pant leg in Iraq. But we are good at conquering the shit out of anyone we feel is in our way. It started with the "native Americans" in the 1600s and continued through World War II. But that is not a very popular option and one that even I would strongly disagree with. So...

2. Agree with Cybie and get the fuck out and let those Neanderthals do whatever the fuck they want.

Let the illuminati do their thing and just try to live right. Treat other people with respect, show up to work on time, have some quality sex, smoke a fatty and go to bed.

 

[McRocket]

First off. I want to apologize to Guy and Peter what's his name (G something). for calling them names. I do not much care for the way they presented themselves sometimes. BUt I consistently overestimate the thickness of the skin of others. And just because my skin is apparently thicker, that does not mean everyone else's is also.
And to knowingly insult someone when they will probably take it more personal then I would is wrong. I haven't heard from Guy on it. But I have from Peter.
So...I will in the future try and refrain from personal attacks or general opinions (MAN - is THAT going to be hard).

Anyway.

I have no real problem with Iran having nukes. Just because a few countries have them; I see no reason why others shouldn't also. I would rather no one had them. But that is not realistic. Neither is the number of nucleur powers remaining as they are. Nukes are (apparently) VERY easy to construct. And with all the plutonium running around, far more countries are going to have nukes before too long - possibly. SO is the US going to bomb everyone of them?
North Korea (apparently) already has nukes. Iran will have them (imo). Apparently much of the facility is underground (the Iranians aren't stupid. They remember what Israel did to Iraq's plant). The US would basically have to invade Iran. ANd the US invading Iran (which has over 60 million people) and a much stronger and more motivated armed forces then Iraq had back in 2003.
And how can they invade Iran and leave North Korea alone? ANd they cannot invade there. THe losses would be astronomical.
Embargo? Embargo what? Iran lived without the West for decades (almost). ANd they still managed to hold Iraq at bay even with the West helping Iraq.

And what if they get a EU and US embargo; they will just get what they need from the other Arab states. AS I typed before. The Arab world's number one enemy is still Israel. ANd as long as ISrael has nukes - the rest of the middle east will want them. ANd they will back anyone else to get them - as long as the country that does is stable and not looking to threaten fellow members as Iraq under Saddam did.

Now if the West can somehow convince the middle east to go along with an embargo - that might be interesting. BUt what would be in it for them?
All Iran could do is say that they will come to the defence (with nukes) of any middle eastern country attacked by Israel. Right now, those states are defenseless.

In my opinion. THe only thing that really scares me about Iran getting nukes is how it affects Israel. As we have seen with the forced pull outs of the gaza strip. Many Israeli's feel just as angry and defensive as the Arabs do. How will they react to suddenly haveing their nucleur monopoly in the Middle East ended?
ANd they can't invade Iran. Even Israel is not THAT strong. But a nucleur strike with one of their nucleur tipped IRBM's and Iran's nuclear problem is over. ANd Isreal would get no military rebuttle from the Arab states for the same reason Israel is completely safe now - they have nukes and no one else there does.
I doubt they would do it. BUt if pushed to the wall...

And in terms of terror. I am not worried. Why would Iran sell nukes to a terrorist group? They do that and it goes off and the United States gets even a whiff that it was an Iranian nuke - well that maybe the end of Iran. And they must (I assume) know this.
They sure do not need the money. SO why would they sell it or use it?

The only worry I have is if North Korea's dictator feels like he is running out of time and his country is crumbling all around him and he is about to be deposed and possibly killed. What will he do then when he feels he has nothing to lose?

But I feel there is little danger otherwise. Dictators want one thing more then anything else - to survive. ANd how long would they if they smuggle a nuke into the Us or Europe and set it off?


Oh...I enjoyed reading the posts above - some I read and some I glanced over. But (to me at least) they all seemed interesting.

And contrary to popular belief - I do not think I know more about these subjects then anyone on here. Not at all. In terms of facts and figures I pale to Hedgehog and SJS and others.
I cannot help if that is how I come across. But I have strong ideas. ANd a bit of knowledge. But I know full well that I am not as up on things as many of you are. I regret if I come across as a know-it-all.

Oh, and to SJS, I am not a democrat (if I was an AMerican). I would be a Lebertarian. They ain't perfect. BUt I like there ideas better then the donkeys and/or the elephants.
Personally, I think all political decisions should be by referendum, but that's another thread.

 

[Facetious]

Re: What should the West do about Iran?

What will we do is the question

No it's not ! We will do nothing !

America's foes have u.s. all sized up. They understand that we no longer stand for principle, only political expediency.

Enter - wholesale nuke distributor -> iran

Only when one goes off in a once sleepy American city will you understand how much of an idealistic - go along to get along - weasel you were, with your incessant, unconditional, anti war anti military disposition. War could ONLY be deemed "legal" after we endure an attack.
For then it will be too late and your lives will never be the same.
I've said it before - most western oriented people only have the capacity to live for the day i.e.-
live in the here and now.

No foresight whatsoever.

 

[Apex]

watch and wait, then act decisively in whatever manner is best suited to the situation

 

[Legzman]

Why all the long posts?

The solution is simple.

Nuke them before they nuke us! Whats the debate? :dunno:

 

[Facetious]

Why all the long posts?

The solution is simple.

Nuke them before they nuke us! Whats the debate? :dunno:

I'd advocate some pinpoint strikes with bunk busters if he openly advocates the destruction of israel again for the thousandth time.

 

[Legzman]

who's talking about destroying Israel? The thread is about Iran. I was answering what we should do about Iran. I don't give a fuck about Israel either mind you, but I was referring to Iran. Don't twist my words!

 

[senob44]

Seeing how the ground war in Iraq has gone, if we do go to war with Iran, we sure as hell better do it from the sea and the air where we should have pretty overwhelming supremacy.

But for now, I think we wait. Wait for them to make a mistake and go too far against either the US or Israel. But I have nothing against making it glaringly obvious that we are ready. Ships in the gulf, flyovers. Tell those fucks that if they don't let our spyplanes fly in their airspace, then it is on.

 

[Legzman]

Seeing how the ground war in Iraq has gone, if we do go to war with Iran, we sure as hell better do it from the sea and the air where we should have pretty overwhelming supremacy.

But for now, I think we wait. Wait for them to make a mistake and go too far against either the US or Israel. But I have nothing against making it glaringly obvious that we are ready.

Wait? Wait for what? If we wait it'll be to late. Fuck it. We're spending 12 billion a month in Iraq, why not another 12 billion to bomb the fuck out of Iran while we're at it?

Just think, how much pretty glass we can pick up after we nuke that little shit box? I mean sand box!

Stained with the blood of...you guessed it!

*EDIT*
I shouldn't use that word. There are to many sensitive fucks here and I wouldn't want to offend anyone. :thefinger