Iran threatens U.S.

[Leafless]

http://www.sltrib.com/nationworld/ci_3583940

What could Iran possibly do to carry out this serious threat and how much longer will the West tolerate this type of aggression?

[Black Dog]

What could Iran possibly do to carry out this serious threat and how much longer will the West tolerate this type of aggression?

Seems more like a warning against aggression than an actual threat to initiate it.

[Drew Bedson]

What could Iran possibly do to carry out this serious threat and how much longer will the West tolerate this type of aggression?

It's a political game played out for ulterior reasons. If Iran wanted Nukes, they would make them and shut up. It goes into regional and world relevence as they see a sucessful Iraq as a threat. Also to them, an Iraqw at war with itself is also a threat but, carries with it opportunity

What are their options? Lots. They can turn up pressure at will in Iraq, making it more difficult for America or, they can use the same intelligence apparatus they used in post revolutionary 1979 to carry out assasinations and cause trouble worldwide to pressure the west for concessions. Hamas is also a tool they cultivate.

A History of Covert Campaigns

Western intelligence agencies first became aware of Tehran's covert campaign against its enemies soon after the revolution. The first targets were Iranian monarchists in exile, who were trying to foment a counterrevolution in Iran. Later, after many of these opponents had been eliminated and the threat brought under control, the Ministry of Information and Security (MOIS) shifted its sights to target exiled dissidents and other opponents of the regime. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, influential leaders of these groups were targeted and assassinated in a sophisticated campaign that spanned the globe.

Covert campaigns of this sort are an important tool for a country like Iran, which has a sophisticated and highly disciplined intelligence service but which could not afford to risk an overwhelming military strike by the United States. Kidnappings and assassinations, carried out with sufficient deniability, have proved an effective way of eliminating enemies and leveraging the country's geopolitical position without incurring unacceptable risk.

[Leafless]

Black Dog

You wrote- " Seems like a warning against aggression then an actual threat to initiate it."

No, this can be interpreted as a direct threat as Iran knows very well what the findings were of the International Atomic Energy Agency and knows the UN is in the positon to impose sanctions.

This is a serious threat and threatens the five permanent members of the security council Britain, China, France, Russia and the U.S. with the emphasis being on the U.S.

[Riverwind]

What could Iran possibly do to carry out this serious threat and how much longer will the West tolerate this type of aggression?

It is pretty arrogant and hypocritical for the 'west' to assume they have the exclusive right to decide which countries have nukes and which don't. I agree that the world will be a more dangerous place if Iran acquires nukes, but Iran's position is extremely rational: they are trying to acquire nukes because they want to protect themselves against a hostile imperialistic power that is occupying their neighboring countries. Americans would do exactly the same thing if the positions were reversed.

[newbie]

It seems like it's way more of a threat than Iraq posed.

[Drew Bedson]

I agree that the world will be a more dangerous place if Iran acquires nukes, but Iran's position is extremely rational: they are trying to acquire nukes because they want to protect themselves against a hostile imperialistic power that is occupying their neighboring countries. Americans would do exactly the same thing if the positions were reversed.

Point being is that those in charge of Iran have little respect for human life and, have already gone on the stump saying the first thing they are going to do is use them if, and when they get them. Therefore, you are corect, that the world would be a more dangerous place.

Oh, and they don't have any public plans to use them defensively either. Last point, I really can't see the US trying to wipe Israel off the map as any sort of Leftist talking point rationale so your comparisson is very out of tune.

It seems like it's way more of a threat than Iraq posed.

Right and wrong. Iraq was a problem that had to be taken care of sooner or later. The opprotunity it provided in the War on Terror made it sooner is all. Iran on the other hand, can be dealt with as their object is not simply to possess nuclear weapons, it is to safeguard themselves against the influence of the West on their society. That influence not being invasion but rather social and political changes within their own borders. Using this nuclear furor is a way of getting attention and, a very effective one.

As so many asutely observed, it is so difficult to stop an idea once it's time has come. What they want is selective 21st century benifits without the evil the West brings with it.

[Riverwind]

Oh, and they don't have any public plans to use them defensively either.

They don't have any public plans to acquire nukes so comments about defensive/offensive use are purely speculative. That said, the fanatics in Iran are no worse than the nutty despots that run China which already have nukes and obsess constantly about Taiwan and the scourge of democratic values.

Last point, I really can't see the US trying to wipe Israel off the map as any sort of Leftist talking point rationale so your comparisson is very out of tune.

No. But Bush has vowed to wipe the 'axis of evil' of the map. Sure, the Americans are talking about the government and not the people, however, that distinction is lost on the average person on the street in Iran.

What ever happens in Iran it will be a classic case of 'you reap what you sow'.

[GostHacked]

It seems like it's way more of a threat than Iraq posed.

Alot of the same rhetoric that preceeded the Iraq invasion. I told you last year that this was gonna happen. I bet I can find a quote I made regarding that. Trying to find my quote, or I might have said it on another forum. Ugh don't want to search through 200 posts to find it ...

This is predicted. Iran is next. And something will happen within the next 10 days

[Drew Bedson]

No. But Bush has vowed to wipe the 'axis of evil' of the map.

Quote please. Something akin to this.

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iran's new president has repeated a remark from a former ayatollah that Israel should be "wiped out from the map," insisting that a new series of attacks will destroy the Jewish state, and lashing out at Muslim countries and leaders that acknowledge Israel.

or;

RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL

That said, the fanatics in Iran are no worse than the nutty despots that run China which already have nukes and obsess constantly about Taiwan and the scourge of democratic values.

Really? I don't recall any of them stating that any country should be wiped off the fact of the earth or that Oriental Nations ought to use nuclear weapons against Taiwan. Have you quotes?

Alot of the same rhetoric that preceeded the Iraq invasion.

Quotes please.

This is predicted. Iran is next. And something will happen within the next 10 days

They are a long ways off from a weapon. Therefore, I don't see anything happening for a year or so outside of sanctions.

[gerryhatrick]

Rumble in the jungle, woo hoo.

[geoffrey]

Iran is way to tough for the US public to deal with an invasion right now. We are talking Vietnam casualities, and the last thing I want to see is hippies in the streets and hippies running to Canada as draft dodgers. Iran has 15 million people fit for military service (not all in the forces obviously). This is far greater than Iraq. Plus they have more money, more disiplined regular forces and more advanced weaponary.

I wouldn't want to go into Iran if I wanted my party to ever be elected in the next 20 years. The US can't afford it politically or economically for quite some time.

[America1]

Iran is way to tough for the US public to deal with an invasion right now. We are talking Vietnam casualities, and the last thing I want to see is hippies in the streets and hippies running to Canada as draft dodgers. Iran has 15 million people fit for military service (not all in the forces obviously). This is far greater than Iraq. Plus they have more money, more disiplined regular forces and more advanced weaponary.

I wouldn't want to go into Iran if I wanted my party to ever be elected in the next 20 years. The US can't afford it politically or economically for quite some time.

[/quot

If we take the gloves off against Iran, it will be a pile of dirt in 6 months. The US isn't good at "playing cop", we are GREAT in open combat. If we go to war with Iran, I don't think you'll see the same soft handed approach that has been going on in Iraq.

[Leafless]

America1

You wrote- " If we go to war with Iran, I don't think you'll see the same type of soft handed approach that has been going on in Iraq."

War is not pretty any time and I to think the U.S. wasted to much time and effort in trying to fight a 'humantarian' type war which did not produce the desired result and probably encouraged the type of aggression we now see in Iraq by initially going into that war with the gloves 'on'.

Unfortunately to many people in Iraq this produced an weak image of the U.S. unable to fight despite their arsenal of high-tech weapons.

[Black Dog]

If we take the gloves off against Iran, it will be a pile of dirt in 6 months. The US isn't good at "playing cop", we are GREAT in open combat. If we go to war with Iran, I don't think you'll see the same soft handed approach that has been going on in Iraq.

Then what? You guys are great at the whole "blowing stuiff up" phase. The "putting stuff back together" part? Not so much.

[Leafless]

Black Dog

You wrote- " Then what? You guys are great at the "blowing stuff up" phase. The "putting stuff back together" part? Not so much.

The emphasis in all of this is called 'cooperation' and most if this could have been avoided if Saddam would have surrendered when given the chance but did not.

Arab countries are demonstrating unreasonable aggression and will only lose in the long wrong.

Why countries like Iraq and Iran want to retain and export hostilities instead of building and fluorishing to the best capabilities of those countries is the cause of problems.

[America1]

If we take the gloves off against Iran, it will be a pile of dirt in 6 months. The US isn't good at "playing cop", we are GREAT in open combat. If we go to war with Iran, I don't think you'll see the same soft handed approach that has been going on in Iraq.

Then what? You guys are great at the whole "blowing stuiff up" phase. The "putting stuff back together" part? Not so much.

If we go into Iran, don't expect any rebuilding.

At least we can say were good at the "blowing stuff up" part, Canada can't do either worth a damn.

[Riverwind]

If we go into Iran, don't expect any rebuilding.

You will be too busy dealing with the complete collapse of the American economy. There is no way the US could invade Iran unless it has the support from th EU and Russia. The US does not have the money or military personal to launch another war - any American who believes otherwise is deluding themselves.

The only real resolution to this crisis is to maintain the public opposition to Iran acquiring nukes make it clear to the public that any use of nuclear weapons will result in several nuclear strike on Iran. Mutually assured destruction kept the Russians in line for 50 years and it will work with the Iranians.

[Black Dog]

The emphasis in all of this is called 'cooperation' and most if this could have been avoided if Saddam would have surrendered when given the chance but did not.

Put yourself in his shoes: you have two options, the end result of both being a likely trip to the gallows. Do you hand yourself over without a fight or try and inflict as much harm on your enemy as you can?

All that aside, there's no hiding the fact that the U.S.'s bungling in the early stages of the occupation set teh stage for the continuing strife today.

Arab countries are demonstrating unreasonable aggression and will only lose in the long wrong.

Why countries like Iraq and Iran want to retain and export hostilities instead of building and fluorishing to the best capabilities of those countries is the cause of problems.

Well, Iran is not Arab, but that's beside the point. The question isn't whether or not Iraq and now Iran are bad (there's no question about that), but what the best way to deal with these places is without making a bigger mess.

If we go into Iran, don't expect any rebuilding.

And how would creating another failed state in the region be in your national interest? Read a history book, kid. Since World War 2, the United States has poured untold billions of dollars into the region and supported some of the worst thugs and criminals around in order to ensure a relatively stable environment in the Middle East: now you're trying to tell me they want to actively destabalize the region?

[Drew Bedson]

Well, Iran is not Arab, but that's beside the point.

Actually, that is a very relevent point. They have little in common with the rest of the region and wish to remain so. While Muslim, they are Shiite and, also, do not share the vision of a Pan Arab state that so many conservative Sunni Muslims aspire to.

And how would creating another failed state in the region be in your national interest? Read a history book, kid. Since World War 2, the United States has poured untold billions of dollars into the region and supported some of the worst thugs and criminals around in order to ensure a relatively stable environment in the Middle East: now you're trying to tell me they want to actively destabalize the region?

Another relevent point. Example is Iraq/Iran war in which the US supported both to ensure that neither got the upper hand and destabilized the region. A destabilized Iran with the radical Muslim world the way it is would be in nobody's interest.

Iran is a very complex problem. It has an educated population that has access to internet and other western media yet is run by medieval minded clerics. Hence, there is a fifth column in place, it is just empowering them that is the problem. The ruling body knows that and, this is part of the problem that we see in play right now - selectively keeping Western influence out of their country without being drawn towards the rest of the Sunni dominated Muslim world.

If Iraq is attacked, you lose the support of the people, the only bright point in the country for the West. Hence, it will be a last resort rather than a first. However, being a developed country, Iran has infastructure and the need to keep that apparatus in full swing. Hence, their desire to conduct brinkmanship with the attention grabbing Nuclear aquisition program. It's not about nukes but, concessions and dancing to the home town crowd against the Great Satan. Proving how strong they are so they should be followed rather than disobeyed.

The only real resolution to this crisis is to maintain the public opposition to Iran acquiring nukes make it clear to the public that any use of nuclear weapons will result in several nuclear strike on Iran. Mutually assured destruction kept the Russians in line for 50 years and it will work with the Iranians.

A crisis is a Texas sized meteor about to hit the earth. Not the possibility that Iran could, in a couple of years, have a nuclear weapon. Lots of time, lots of ways to get this problem dealt with and, lots of ways to undermine the Iranian govenment.

MAD won't work on Iran because they won't get nukes - ever. This so called nutcase in charge of the show, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is pretty shrewd. He should have been an actor in Hollywood as he plays all sides very well. He has the people doing a 'rah rah' as he fearlessly takes on the west, even though he has shit for cards. He has the west willing to give him just about anything out of the blue for doing nothing but stopping a nuclear program that he doesn't have for lack of material. He can turn up the heat at will on the US throught the back door in Iraq and, enjoys support from the non Persian Sunni world by support of Hamas.

He knows he won't get attacked. They're at least a year or two from a nuclear weapon providing they get the things they need to even start. Hence, it's all rhetoric and, he is winning.

[America1]

And how would creating another failed state in the region be in your national interest? Read a history book, kid. Since World War 2, the United States has poured untold billions of dollars into the region and supported some of the worst thugs and criminals around in order to ensure a relatively stable environment in the Middle East: now you're trying to tell me they want to actively destabalize the region?

-"Create another failed state in the ME", I don't want to re-create Iran, I want to destroy their weapons program, end of story. I could care less about their state and its success/failure.

- I'm not a "kid" and haven't been for a long time now.

-1st time I think you've made a point I agree with, we have spent billions trying to make the world a more stable place. All so ungrateful little f*cks like you can shoot your mouth off without worrying about getting bombed/attacked for it, b/c guess what? The Islamic crazies don’t care about Canadian or American, they just see western infidels. It just happens that Canada is so insignificant that everybody forgets about them.

[Black Dog]

Create another failed state in the ME", I don't want to re-create Iran, I want to destroy their weapons program, end of story. I could care less about their state and its success/failure.

It seems you have a little problem with cause and effect so I'll spell it out for you: if the U.S. attacks Iran in the manner you perscribe ("take the gloves off...pile of dirt in 6 months.") you will destroy Iran as a political entit. In other words: a biggerversion of Iraq. Now I can't really see how creating a destablizing force in a region already chock a block full of them is helpful.

1st time I think you've made a point I agree with, we have spent billions trying to make the world a more stable place. All so ungrateful little f*cks like you can shoot your mouth off without worrying about getting bombed/attacked for it, b/c guess what? The Islamic crazies don’t care about Canadian or American, they just see western infidels. It just happens that Canada is so insignificant that everybody forgets about them.

Again, cause and effect: those "Islamic crazies" are more or less a direct byproduct of your nations generosity. Likie I said, read a book.

[Drew Bedson]

Again, cause and effect: those "Islamic crazies" are more or less a direct byproduct of your nations generosity.

Not true. Those 'crazies' are a product of a civilization clash that has been brewing for more than eight hundred years. China has it's 'Crazies' as does Russia. The US is merely a present day focal point in order for Al Queda and the like to to attain power. The 'common enemy' approach that is used on mindless masses to combine them in a direction that benifits the directors is an effective tool. I'm quite surprised (and disappointed) they have used it so well that they can influence great thinkers who suddenly only have a thirty year memory span though. Kudos.

If the US did not exist, do you really think that Al Queda would not either? Thier 'Manifesto' is not to bring the US to it's knees, it is to recreate the former Caliphate, which BTW existed - and fell, long before America even existed. The US has only been involved there since the second world war, leaving 750 years of defeat and oppression ranging from Attila the Hun to every other nation that stumbled across the Middle East inbetween. The mindset (and theological rallying point) is they have unjustly been losers and exploited by everybody, including the Dutch for crying out loud, with America being the latest 'bully.' Nothing wrong with them of course so self examination is out of the question.

911 could have just as well have been a combined attack on the Tower of London and the European stock exchange.

Edit:

Sorry, history hates a vacumn. If the US did not exist, another power would certainly have filled the void that is US influence and an attack would have been directed at them. So, pick your poison. Europe, China, Russia or some other entity. All would play their part equally well. Anybody blaming the US for this without tempering it with the mindset that has existed for almost a millenia should simply turn off CNN and any other western media and get their news from the truth of Allah - Al Jazeera. It has more reality than igoring history.

[Black Dog]

Not true. Those 'crazies' are a product of a civilization clash that has been brewing for more than eight hundred years. China has it's 'Crazies' as does Russia. The US is merely a present day focal point in order for Al Queda and the like to to attain power. The 'common enemy' approach that is used on mindless masses to combine them in a direction that benifits the directors is an effective tool. I'm quite surprised (and disappointed) they have used it so well that they can influence great thinkers who suddenly only have a thirty year memory span though. Kudos.

I think the this thread's context provides a clue as to why your wrong. We were talking about Iran and somehow, over the course of things, Al Qaeeda popped up. Now, the two are apples and oranges, cats and dogs, but to the casual observer of things, they are linked ("war on terror", "axis of evil" and all that). AQ is, essentially, a Wahhabist cult of personality. Iran loathes them. This highlights the deep divisions within the Islamic world and shows why the "clash of civilizations" angle is fallacious.

If the US did not exist, do you really think that Al Queda would not either?

Not in the way we know it, no.

[KrustyKidd]

Hi Black Dog. I managed to get my old monker back so, no need to hide behind my real name anymore. I apppoligise for any inconveinience this may have caused.

AQ is, essentially, a Wahhabist cult of personality. Iran loathes them. This highlights the deep divisions within the Islamic world and shows why the "clash of civilizations" angle is fallacious.

Yes, like I said

The US is merely a present day focal point in order for Al Queda AND THE LIKE to to attain power. The 'common enemy' approach that is used on mindless masses to combine them in a direction that benifits the directors is an effective tool. I'm quite surprised (and disappointed) they have used it so well that they can influence great thinkers who suddenly only have a thirty year memory span though. Kudos.

To further the above , Iran, while having an educated public which is somewhat westernized, is under the rule of Clerics who hold the real power through an elected body. In order to explain life's ills, self examination is not conducted. The 'Great Satan' doll is just dragged out of thge closet whenever necessary to divert attention.

Not in the way we know it, no.

Well, if the US did not exist, do you belive that somhow, the countries of the world would, for the first time in history, stop trying to bribe, push, threaten, pay, trade or otherwise get an inside track on goods they wish to secure? Of course they wouldn't, after all, the Great Powers like France, Britain, Spain, Russia and China all wrote the book on hedgemony, violence and oppression long before the US existed. They certainly would have shouldered in to support faltering and weak Shieks who promised them oil. Knowing what I know of the purges, social inequity without any sort of returns to the people whom they enslaved, I doubt that the radical intelligensia of the Wahabbist faith would lack anything other than a catilyst and a common event to bring forth their vision.

Sucn an event would be China or Russia moving troops in to help a puppet government safeguard their oil supplies. Or, any War with an 'Infidel/Muslim' theme in which an expeditionary force made up of troublemaker intelligensia could be exported with a one way ticket by fearful Aposphate rulers.

In any case, it isn't hard to imagine another scenario as without the USA, there would be more nations taking more advantage and more opportunity for problems. I mean, it could all boil down to western influence and resentment and then reach a head when a cartoon of Mohamed is published. Or, A French Oil worker spirtited away to France after a pulic crime of any variety- rape, seeing a woman without a veil or whatever. I mean, when the idea has reached the top, you can't keep it down.