• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Bad idea on part of Netanyahu. Drawing a "red line"

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

OneOfTheseDays

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2000
7,052
0
0
Obama's red line, as well as much of our allies, is Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Either we trust our intelligence or we don't. We will not bullied by anyone into starting another reckless war. Certainly not Israel. They need to understand who exactly is their big brother in this situation.
 

SandEagle

Lifer
Aug 4, 2007
16,816
11
0
looks like something a 3rd grader would draw. get serious. no one's buying your bs. how about try drawing lines where your borders are and stop stealing land?



 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
I can't see the vid, I have no audio.

What's the solution?

As far as "face saving" seems to me every approach suffers that problem. How is Iran backing down in the face of sanctions any more "face saving" than backing down from threats of military action? What face-saving excuse can Iran apply to backing down from sanctions that it can't equally apply to threat of military action?

Fern
First, tell me which would be more embarrassing to you if you were a major corporate officer with many under you and The Big Boss called a meeting that would be witnessed by your staff, which numbers in the hundreds-

"We have a problem and we need to seriously address this to our mutual benefit, and here's a plan that could do it"

Or

"If you don't comply and do exactly what I tell you in the time I say I'm going to kick your ass to the curb and you'll be cleaning toilets if you are lucky."

Pick one.


As far as the "how", I've already outlined a possible scenario, which is "trust but verify" in new clothes. A series of goals are set which benefit both sides. If energy is the goal then we allow LEU production and agree to it in principle. The advancement of the projects are contingent to open and full inspections, not this sham we have now. As long as that happens we continue to incrementally provide technology for nuclear power. We assume control of HEU while LEU reactors are built. Playing games with us invokes increasing sanctions. Rinse repeat.

This allows the Ayatollah to have "peace with honor" in that he achieves his stated goals, can claim he's bested the Great Satan, and we have control and eventual removal of HEU. That's not it of course because there will need to be a mechanism for continual inspection with dire consequences besides blowing up facilities where the radiation could kill between 5 and 30K civilians. That's why we don't just go in and bomb without really really needing to.

What would remain to be seen is if the Ayatollah is like NKs Kim, and willing to see his people die for his honor. If that's the case then we issue an ultimatum with our final offer and god help them.
 

PandaBear

Golden Member
Aug 23, 2000
1,375
1
81
I don't give a rass at what this guy is drawing in his sandbox, I am not going to let my country men die just because he and his power of influence want things his way.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,670
13,749
136
The whole world knows they have a nuclear program and are enriching Uranium. Iran even says as much. There's nothing for you to deny except the UN's report of how far along Iran is.

Attacking Netanyahu's credibility is a deflection. You have to attack the UN's credibility.
You and the rest of the ravers assume facts not in evidence, that Iran is "seeking nuclear weapons" despite Khameni's fatwa against them and the fact that IAEA inspectors have not found any evidence of deliberate enrichment past reactor grade. It's really a huge amount of projection of one's own motives onto others, particularly from Israel, whose own reactor does little other than produce plutonium for weapons. Projections from the US are similar. Our own nuclear program was geared towards weapons production from the beginning.

If no weapons grade materials are produced, no weapons can be made. That's the underlying rationale of the NPT and of IAEA inspections. Signatories *do* have the right to enrichment, and the UN in the form of the IAEA has the responsibility to both monitor and enable that.
 
Last edited:

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
First, tell me which would be more embarrassing to you if you were a major corporate officer with many under you and The Big Boss called a meeting that would be witnessed by your staff, which numbers in the hundreds-

"We have a problem and we need to seriously address this to our mutual benefit, and here's a plan that could do it"

Or

"If you don't comply and do exactly what I tell you in the time I say I'm going to kick your ass to the curb and you'll be cleaning toilets if you are lucky."

Pick one.


As far as the "how", I've already outlined a possible scenario, which is "trust but verify" in new clothes. A series of goals are set which benefit both sides. If energy is the goal then we allow LEU production and agree to it in principle. The advancement of the projects are contingent to open and full inspections, not this sham we have now. As long as that happens we continue to incrementally provide technology for nuclear power. We assume control of HEU while LEU reactors are built. Playing games with us invokes increasing sanctions. Rinse repeat.

This allows the Ayatollah to have "peace with honor" in that he achieves his stated goals, can claim he's bested the Great Satan, and we have control and eventual removal of HEU. That's not it of course because there will need to be a mechanism for continual inspection with dire consequences besides blowing up facilities where the radiation could kill between 5 and 30K civilians. That's why we don't just go in and bomb without really really needing to.

What would remain to be seen is if the Ayatollah is like NKs Kim, and willing to see his people die for his honor. If that's the case then we issue an ultimatum with our final offer and god help them.
The problem is that "saving face" is clearly a factor in the approach to the issue in the US too (and possibly in Israel as well). The idea of using an approach besides bending Iran to our will solely through threat of (or actual us of) force seems to be outright rejected as "weak" by a pretty significant portion of American politicians and pundits. It's hard to picture us offering the Iranians a way out of the standoff when so many people seem to object to the basic idea of doing so.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
The problem is that "saving face" is clearly a factor in the approach to the issue in the US too (and possibly in Israel as well). The idea of using an approach besides bending Iran to our will solely through threat of (or actual us of) force seems to be outright rejected as "weak" by a pretty significant portion of American politicians and pundits. It's hard to picture us offering the Iranians a way out of the standoff when so many people seem to object to the basic idea of doing so.
It's not the crazies here which will determine actions in Iran. It's the next President (almost certainly Obama now) and the other P5+1 powers. Obama has had two choices as to how to deal with the Iranian nuclear problem, one of prevention or containment. The latter offers more opportunities for shifting blame onto others for failure. The former, which is policy now, is prevention. Obama has put his reputation on the line in this, and while I'm not a fan of Obama regarding domestic issues as you know I'm fairly impressed as to how he has dealt with foreign problems. He's managed to not alienate the rest of the world, something not seen in a while, manages to act without commitment to decade plus invasions and has proven that when needed he can be decisive. I can understand what he's doing and in large part I agree. I think he should have been as condemning as he was apologetic about the Koran burnings, but what was done is done. I think he handled the more recent crisis better and managed to express how we as a people have rights and though we may not agree with the message that isn't anything to the slaying of innocent people and is completely unacceptable.

Iran is going to be a tough nut to crack and there are a number of interrelated factors all influencing one another. He personally may not be able to put forward the best possible if imperfect solutions, but I believe that he can listen to whose who are trained to do so.

The chances of the US acting unilaterally are slim. Israel is a wild card and the fly in the policy ointment is that Netanyahu also has a home crowd to play to and Obama cannot afford his ego or irritation to completely alienate Israeli leadership.

There had better be a hell of a lot of backdoor diplomacy between them and us going on right now.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
Maybe Hayabsusa say something worth saying, in saying, "It's not the crazies here which will determine actions in Iran. It's the next President (almost certainly Obama now) and the other P5+1 powers."

The flaw in that postion is in the fact that Israel, the USA, and the P5+ powers are the real crazies. As the real crazies are status quo powers who somehow pretend they can prevent real world changes that put them on top of the world 100 or 50 years ago, but are unsustainable now. Right now Uncle Sucker is number one world fool.

As the USA spends itself into bankrupsy to try to prevent world changes that will occur anyway. Smart nation get ahead of inevitable changes that will occur and take advantages of the changes, dumb nations that best describe th P5+ nations fight changes and lose their ass in ineffectually doing so.

Sad to say, the concept of the UN security council has been a giant failure as the majority UN set of non-alighned nations are likely to force the abolution of the UN security council on the grounds it been a giant failure and the number one threat to world peace.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
The flaw in that postion is in the fact that Israel, the USA, and the P5+ powers are the real crazies.
Holy shit dude. Immadinnermuffin denies that there was a holocaust. Their government portrays Assad as a poor victim of everyone. People are removed from office for witchcraft and everyone else are the crazies. Don't do drugs that do you, K?

dumb nations that best describe th P5+ nations fight changes and lose their ass in ineffectually doing so.
Congratulations. You have given the best reason for nuking the region yet. Since they are so awesome that they are going to kill us weaklings maybe we should strike first? Thanks for that bit of "wisdom".
Sad to say, the concept of the UN security council has been a giant failure as the majority UN set of non-alighned nations are likely to force the abolution of the UN security council on the grounds it been a giant failure and the number one threat to world peace.
So not only do you want to see Imadickinabasket eliminate Israel you want to then remove everyone else who isn't an Ayatollah fanboy.

I've managed to ignore your ravings so far, but enough is enough. Everyone else are threats to world peace and the alternate reality holocaust deniers are just ducky.

Fuck it. Just say you want Iran to rule the world and kill everyone who does not play by their rules. You've made everyone else into the embodiment of evil so it's your moral obligation.

You realize that no one buys this, right? There are others who support Iran in some way, but you are the only one who pronounces rational people crazy and lunatics who deny reality in front of them as sane. I don't know what personal demons haunt you, but stop trying to inflict them on everyone else.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
Can't you do better than that Hayabusa, other than to ineffectually say, "So not only do you want to see Imadickinabasket eliminate Israel you want to then remove everyone else who isn't an Ayatollah fanboy."

Because just Iranian Israeli issues is just a tiny fraction of the set of P5+ stupidity in the 67 year history of the UN. Neither Israel or Iran had anything to do with conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, Alegeria, India, Pakistan, and what amounts to the entire 40 year cold war that threatened nuclear annialiationto to the entire world. As I have yet to start scratching the surface of other world issues that the P5+ touched and succeeded in making the problems far worse.

Yet you Haybasusa the limited thinker can't figure out any rebuttal of my position other than to blame Achmadinjad the idiot and powerless motor mouth for everything.

When we should examine the 1945 UN decision to form the security council, put the P5+ set of nation in charge of helping form world peace, when in fact, IMHO, the P5+ nation track record has done everything to prevent world peace.

Simply becaue the P5+ set of nations that are composed of Status quo powers are made up out the of victors of WW2. Which is not to say all P5+ nations did remain united immdiately after WW2, because in fact quite the opposite happened.

But with the new Nuclear realities that soon saw all P5+ nations become nuclear arms powers, the new reality became it was unthinkable that such P5+ could start a nuclear war with another P5+ power without assured destructions.

But the rub became, as the P5+ set of nations still had unresolvable conflicts with each other, the new metric became for the P5+ to form a gentleman's agreement to gang up against the rest of the world without nuclear weapons. As the new game became to forment proxy wars in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Algeria, Cuba, Eastern Europe, South America, Africa, the mid-east, and all over the world. Let those second and third war nations pay the price for war and anatchy, and as a bonus P5+ nations got to test their conventional military technolgy against each other without risking a nuclear conflict with a P5+ nuclear power.

As I submit the UN security council concept has been a giant UN failure.
 

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,867
3
76
Lemon Law,

Obviously tentions are greator between America, and Muslim Countries.

I think we thought our wars, would lessen Muslim countries, but that has NOT been the case.

-John
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
Lemon Law,

Obviously tentions are greator between America, and Muslim Countries.

I think we thought our wars, would lessen Muslim countries, but that has NOT been the case.

-John
Some did but not all. This doesn't really have anything to do with Islam. It is about authoritarians controlling their environment. Kim in Korea was hardly a muslim but he and the Ayatollah have much in common and the objection of many is about the expansion of control of such people.

That brings us to what people think ought to be done. There is the "we shouldn't care" group who will cry only when it hits their wallet, and there will be moaning then, and those who would act in some way. That breaks down into those who want a major armed conflict like the neocon holdovers and Lemon Laws. They both want one side to win see one side thats good and one side must fall. The first is just more honest about it. The remainder don't want Imawhatsit mentalities spreading nor want to kill the Iranian people so we look for other options.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
Finally Hayabsusa gets a little of it by saying, "That brings us to what people think ought to be done. There is the "we shouldn't care" group who will cry only when it hits their wallet, and there will be moaning then, and those who would act in some way. That breaks down into those who want a major armed conflict like the neocon holdovers and Lemon Laws. They both want one side to win see one side thats good and one side must fall. The first is just more honest about it. The remainder don't want Imawhatsit mentalities spreading nor want to kill the Iranian people so we look for other options"

But how hard do we look for other options is exactly the question. Then Hayabusa pretends its a question of super proactive neo cons and isolationits who only will see the error of their ways when ignoring the problem, bites isolationist in the wallet. Which is a total crock, IMHO, on the part of Hayabusa. Simply because what has bit the USA is it fact War Hawks and neo cons engaged in total short range thinking they can fix US foreign folicy problems in various regions by pulling out a can of US military whip ass. Which has backfired badly every time we and the Russians have tried it after 1950.

Korea was at best a danerous draw as the first major example. Vietnam was a clear US loss with a 58,000+ US butchers bill. And back in the days of a stronger US dollar, the monitary costs may have been under 1 trillion, but since Uncle Sucker is still footing the medical bills of those disabled, who knows what the indirect costs are now. On the other side of the accounting , 2 million Vietnamesae civilians killed, the whole, region of surrounding nations destabilized, as they still not have totally recovered today. As many in the world regard the killing fields of Cambodia as a direct US consequence.

But at least the American people by in large learned their lesson as we held our miltary on a tight leach will still engaged in economic buckaneering that failed to prevent the world changes we tried to prevent. Getting a little out of proper sequence, the Russian bear cast their greedy eye on Afghanistan, and found they got their own Vietnam in return with a little US poxzy war help. As we sent them stinger missiles, trained Afghan terrorists including Ossama Bin Laden in terror tactics, while calling them freedom fighters instead of terrorists. And short term that US training and supplying terrorists worked perfectly, as soon the Russian bear, nose properly tweaked, was sent packing. As US foreign stupidity lost all gained because there was no long range thinking or an iota of US foreign policy brains. As the USA lost a golden opportinity to supply US foreign aid to stabalize Afghanistan, and instead dropped Afghanistan as a no longer needed tool. As a result a Afghan civil war, and then the final rise of the Taliban. And we can also draw a straight line between aiding Afghan terrorists to 911. And now in the longest war in US history, inept US foreign policy has given the Agfhan people one of the most corrupt governments. And now we wonder why the Afghan people place more trust in the Taliban than in Nato. Even now at a time when most of the Afghan people dislike the Taliban and their Islamist balony doctrines. But it took at lot of hard work and inspired US stupidity for Nato to demonstrate they were a far worse alternative.

And as a US bonus in inspired foreign policy stupidity, the long standing war in Afghanistan has destabilized the whole region, and risks a nuclear war between Pakistan an India.

But still, the crown Jewel of US foreign policy perhaps lies in the mid-east, as short term thinking largely lies at the heart of it. Not to say the US foreign policy was in any way smart before, the issue came to a head in 1979 when the Iranian people expelled their corrupt thief in the US planted Shah of Iran. And the US snit and panic ever since has been getting Iran back under Western friendly. US short term stinking thinking try #1 was to arm Saddam of Iraq, and letting Saddam to do the US heavy lifting to get Iran back into the US British Harem. And when Iraq did invade Iran as planned, we suddenly learned that Saddam was committing the worst sin imaginable, by double dealing with the Russians. IN US eyes, as Noreiga had already discovered before Saddam, there i nothing worse than a tin pot dictator who will not stay bought.

After the dust settled, Iran barely beat Saddam back, and Iran learned its lesson. Because if Iran could not depend on anyone for help, they would learn to make and find their own weapons.

Meanwhile back in Iraq, Saddam frustrated decided to take Kuwait. As George H. Bush put together a world wide coalition of the willing, and pretty soon all of Iraqi civilian infrastructure was devistated in a 3 month bombing campaign. Then finally we put coalition forces on the ground, and Saddam was forced out of Kuwait in a big victory for short term thinking. As the US people were thrilled and forgot the lessons of Vietnam. And better yet, no lasting quagmires or US butcher bills. The foreign policy downsides of that short term thinking is that GHB, terrified of a US quagmire left Saddam in place as it planted the seeds for another worse war a decade later. As GWB the stupid scrub, learned nothing from his daddy, as Donald Dumsfeld assured Iraq war two would cause no quarmires. And then GWB dispatched Dick Cheney and his lying cronies to sell a pnony war based on the falsegood that Saddam had WMD's.

Now 2 or three trillion dollars later, and a butcher bill bargain of less than 5000 US troops, Iraq is still destabalized, its government is ineffectual and corrupt, 2 million Iraqis have been killed or exciled, the rest of the mid-east is now more unstable than any time in my lifetime, and US foreign policy has damn near no credibility.

Tell us again, Hayabusa how the only US foreign policy hazard lies in action and some wise restraint and better planning.

Hayabusa, IMHO, with US fools like you, our destruction and impoverishment as a country is assured.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
Why that's wonderful. A history lesson at the expense of today. But hey, the security council which still doesn't get along completely are finally managing concurrence and thats over Iran.

In todays world there is a possibility of Iran getting nuclear power and addressing the rest of the world safety concerns while in the meantime being aware of the need to do this without civilian casualties. You? You attack anyone but Iran, suggest provocative nonsense like pitting the west against non aligned nations and bring up Korea. Well that's wonderful. You haven't contributed one potential solution (self immolation doesn't count), you avoid the mentalities that the current Iranian leadership has and appeal to history which often turned out as it did because those you accuse didn't realize mutual concerns and interests. So now that they have and your precious Ayatollah and those like him are the reason, you have a cow and suggest inflammatory actions that make Netanyahu look like Gandi. Ok, lets kick the non aligned nations out of the US and they can have their own "UN", where they can be completely isolated. That should work in their interests. Whats not going to happen is Assad running the show, that poor much maligned man who Iranian leadership says has been set up by israel.

There may be a day when the war you ask for comes and lucky you will be able to point fingers at everyone else, and you will just as sure as the sun rises. You are a neocon, waiting for your day.

You and your "bomb ' em" friends won't go unchallenged.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
Once again Hayabusa justifies his world view on only Achmadinejad, who burst on to the world scene in 2002, and will be term limited ended by 2014. Your other mistake and distortian is to believe I support the Mullah's of Iran who are already wearing out their Iranian welcome as a new Iranian generation will inevitbabtly take over soon.

As for you Hayabusa, you back Israel's Netanyuhu and similar Israeli leaders to the hilt, and if the Israeli poeple do not wake up and smell the coffee soon, the mid-east is very likely to explode.

Hayabusa, your views may be more popular on this forum, as for me, I am confident I will be proved right in the end. And already am, even though the shape of changes are difficult to predict
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
Once again Hayabusa justifies his world view on only Achmadinejad, who burst on to the world scene in 2002, and will be term limited ended by 2014. Your other mistake and distortian is to believe I support the Mullah's of Iran who are already wearing out their Iranian welcome as a new Iranian generation will inevitbabtly take over soon.

As for you Hayabusa, you back Israel's Netanyuhu and similar Israeli leaders to the hilt, and if the Israeli poeple do not wake up and smell the coffee soon, the mid-east is very likely to explode.

Hayabusa, your views may be more popular on this forum, as for me, I am confident I will be proved right in the end. And already am, even though the shape of changes are difficult to predict
Given the validity of any of your ME predictions, what can anyone say.

Iran (government) is not interested in peace in that section of the world; they want to dominate like the Persia of yore.

If not, why would they continually be supporting terror groups overtly and backing Syria with arms?

They want the influence that was lost when the dumped the Shah. Religion won, respect/influence was lost
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
Once again Hayabusa justifies his world view on only Achmadinejad, who burst on to the world scene in 2002, and will be term limited ended by 2014. Your other mistake and distortian is to believe I support the Mullah's of Iran who are already wearing out their Iranian welcome as a new Iranian generation will inevitbabtly take over soon.
Since the entire electoral process determines who can run, and the mullahs vet candidates before they can stand for election, it's hard to imagine that the latter has a laize faire attitude towards their mouthpieces claims and attitudes. He may be gone but another puppet will arise.



As for you Hayabusa, you back Israel's Netanyuhu and similar Israeli leaders to the hilt, and if the Israeli poeple do not wake up and smell the coffee soon, the mid-east is very likely to explode.
Thread title:

Bad idea on part of Netanyahu. Drawing a "red line"
So parse that closely and tell me how saying that Netanyahu is wrong (bad ideas are wrong in Real World) is consistent with backing him to the hilt? Where in this thread have I said that anyone who wants to do so is right?

Yeah, I thought so.

Hayabusa, your views may be more popular on this forum, as for me, I am confident I will be proved right in the end. And already am, even though the shape of changes are difficult to predict
Who cares who's popular? I've stated my goals which is for Iran to have nuclear power and the West to inspect without obstruction as per NPT agreement to assure that there is no threat, not the word of a Holocaust denier who certainly has a screw loose. Of course you might agree with him. If not then trusing one who can't get that straight because he can't tell the truth or he believes it is crazy. You completely ignore that.

Still won't that be grand if Iran and the West can't resolve their problems and killing begins? You can tell everyone you were right. I'm sure that will be a source of satisfaction.

The fact is that you urge policies and actions that are far more deadly than mine to Iran. Stand tall, stand proud, remember all the wrongs done and never surrender. Show them that even in the face of death your principles are more precious than your lives.

Yeah, that's going to help them, eh?
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
BTW LL what solution do you offer which will provide nuclear power for Iran and at the same address the Wests security concerns beside "Trust, but please don't verify"?

We're all aquiver with anticipation. How will you duck the question? I wonder.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
EagleKeeper has an interesting view but quite incorrect viewpoint as, he states and asks, "Iran (government) is not interested in peace in that section of the world; they want to dominate like the Persia of yore.

If not, why would they continually be supporting terror groups overtly and backing Syria with arms?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry EK, IMHO, you have three totally historical unsupportable positions. So lets take them one by one with my response in parenthisies.

1. "Iran (government) is not interested in peace in that section of the world; they want to dominate like the Persia of yore." ( The last time the ethnic Persians had any military domination ambitions in the the mid-east area was about 2300 years ago. The first time Persia tried to militarily dominate in the mid-east region, was in the basic time of Socrates, and at time Greece was not a nation per say, and rather a collection of city States who united to repel the invading Persians. Hundred of years later a Macedonian king succeeded in miliraily uniting the Macadonian region to the North of Greece, and his son Alexander the Great, conquered Greece, present day Turkey, ethnically Persian Iran, dominating large parts of India, as Alexander's only notable failure was in failing to dominate what is now Afghanistan. Alexander untimelty death in his early 30's in a drunken binge not only ended Macadonian/Greek ambitions, it also set the stage for the subsequent rise of Rome. As ethnic Persians in Persain Iran have never had any ambitions for mid-east domination ever since. )

2. Then in another crock of revisionist history, " EK asks, If not, why would they ( they presumably being Iran ) continually be supporting terror groups overtly and backing Syria with arms? ( Maybe only partially true, but the real question has to go back to 1953 or earlier. As the newly minted State Israel in 1948 sided with the USA and the Western powers conspired to replace colonial domination with economic domination. Because post 1945, the combined nations of Saudi Arabia and Iran could suppy all world oil demand at the time. The " Western powers" still control Saudi Arabia, but when, in 1953, the people of Iran democratically elected a leader leader who wanted to Pursue a foreign policy driven by what's in the best interests Iran. Which didn't mean Iranian military domination of its neighbors in any way, and rather an Iranian declairation of independent from Western economic dominance. As history shows, the US and the Brits soon organized a military coup, placed a US Puppet Shah as the Iranian leader, and everyone outside the mid-east lived happily thereafter until 1979. It took over a decade while the West looted most of Iranian, but my 1979 the Shah had succeeded in alienating 99.99% of the Iranian people, And by the time the Shah and the West had woken up, it was all but over. The Shah looked for any remaining Iranian military support, found none, and took billions of dollars of portable Iranian assets and ran for his life. And as a long time Muslin cleric exciled to France, then flew to Iran, and united the Iranian people without firing a shot. The Shah did not have long to enjoy his stolen assets, as Cancer got him soon later. As for the West, it was time for plan B, as Iran again declaired their independence from Western economic domination. But in term of Iran finding any mid-east allies, Iran had two problems, first they were not ethnic Arabs and instead were ethically Persian. And instead of being grade A Muslims Sunni, Iran was brand X minority Shia Muslims. But in terms of the Western powers getting Iran back into their, plan B started with a big world PR campaign that the new Muslim Mullah leaders of Iran were backward and brutal louts who were. murdering their own poeple on large numbers. And in fact the first Iranian Ayotolla played into Western hands by foolishly allowing radical Iranian elements to take over the US embassy and hold the personell hostage for over a year. As for the rest of the Western plan B PR campaign, it went over like a lead balloon in Iran itself, as 99% of the Iranian people were thrilled to get rid of the Shah and his cia trained secret police. So it was time for a Western power plan C. And soon Reagan dispatched envoys to wisper sweet nothings to Saddam Huessein, to the effect we will arm you to the teeth, if you will just invade Iran and put Iran back into the Western Harem. As Saddam with visions of becoming the New Arab Nassar who could unite all the Arabs under his banner also double dealt with the Russians to supersize his mid-east domination plan. And then suddenly Israel woke up, when it got the intel that Saddam had nuclear weapons ambition and was building a nuclear reactor at about the Same time the Western powers were deciding Saddam and not Iran was public mid-east danger #1. As soon, Israeli war planes were trespassing across the air space of Jordan, and soon the Iraqi reactor was nothing but rubble. Iran barely surived as it ould not beg or borrow the arms to defend itself with, and then made sure to lean how to make many such modern defensive arms itself. Later came Gulf War 1&2, and finally the Saddam threat was ended at the end of a rope.
Which came at a price of a 2+ trillion US quagmire, that eroded US foreign policy support to near zero in the mid-east and especially in Iraq. Because the Iraqi people paid 99% of the Western fear of Saddam. As for Israel, they too were big losers, as they became especially fearful because, unlike all their hostile Arab neighbors, they had lost the ability to dominate Iran. As for Ek's idea that its only Iran that supports and suppies Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas, any Iranian support is drawfed by Saudi oil money. Nor is Israel or the USA innocent lambs who stand passively by, because both are actively supporting at far higher levels anti-Iranian terrorism, sabatoge, and acts of murder, not only inside only Iran, but all over the mid-east. As for the EK promoted myth that Iran is the only nation in the world to now support Syria and the fairly new brutality of Assad, the real villain is Russia and lack of Western support to unite with the Arabs and eliminate Assad. The US can't do the morally right thing, because it would promote the rising influence of Egypt and Turkey. )

Then EK really gets absurd by saying, " They ( presumably Iran ) want the influence that was lost when the dumped the Shah. Religion won, respect/influence was lost."

( What a stupid thing to say EK, everyone who had an iota of independent unbiased intelligence knew the Shah was nothing but a hired thief and a vicous thuggish mass murder of his own people. The Shah never had any real respect amoung Muslims and Christians. As for Iran, and other Muslims, Iran has not lost any religious Muslim cred inside or outside of Iran. And in fact shelters Sunni clerics like a Sunni Al-Sader. EK, you must be confusing the fact that a large part of world's 1.4 billion Muslims, think and with very good reasons, that the USA and the Western powers are engaging in a religious war with Islam. And INMO EK, what you just said ranks right up at the top of all the false propaganda you ever uttered.)
 
Last edited:

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
BTW LL what solution do you offer which will provide nuclear power for Iran and at the same address the Wests security concerns beside "Trust, but please don't verify"?

We're all aquiver with anticipation. How will you duck the question? I wonder.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry Haybasua, I just finished debunking, EK, who only seems slightly more FOS that you are. And that tooks a few hours. First things first, I will get to you later, either later tonight or tomorrow. Stuffing idiots back into their cracker jacks box is a thankless job on this forum, I get more help now than before, but don't worry your pretty little head Hayabua, as later I will try to answer which of us is ducking the real question(s).
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
1) Did Persian not attempt to conquer Greece and that area as an expansion out of Persia itself.

2) Did Iran not lose influence when the kicked out the Shah and become a pariah by taking over the US embassy? If not; please provide a list of countries that applauded the takeover.

3) Is Iran now supporting Syria (against the world), supporting proxies in attacking Israel; supporting Shite groups to keep Iraq unstable? This seems to be extension of her power more into the ME and ensure that in three critical areas, there is no peace.

4) Is Iran threatening to close down the Gulf (against the world) if Israel sneezes her way. If that not a threat of power demonstration; she can rule over the complete area; ignoring/overriding what the little Gulf state want.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry Haybasua, I just finished debunking, EK, who only seems slightly more FOS that you are. And that tooks a few hours. First things first, I will get to you later, either later tonight or tomorrow. Stuffing idiots back into their cracker jacks box is a thankless job on this forum, I get more help now than before, but don't worry your pretty little head Hayabua, as later I will try to answer which of us is ducking the real question(s).
So you won't answer the question. You'll pontificate and divert to something else? Perhaps Operation Ajax? Perhaps Israeli nukes? I can hardly wait for you to ignore what the P5+1 and the Iranians are supposedly trying to accomplish.

Oh while you are at it in all your thanklessness, please call the news agencies and tell them they have got it all wrong too? They seem to think this is about nuclear power and inspections and potential nuclear programs just as the rest of the world does. Those talks must be about the price of pastrami in peoria.

I can hardly wait for you to not answer.
 

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
10,893
204
106
What purpose does it serve Iran to develop a nuclear weapon and launch it at Israel or any of our allies in the middle east?

Someone explain this to me before we start drumming the war drums.
While the threat of Iran doing a first strike with a nuke is low, the nuke gives them the confidence to follow through with other attacks without fear of invasion. Already they finance and train fighters around the ME but keep to the background. After they have a nuke to hide behind they can be bolder as long as they don't do anything that would risk a nuclear war.
 

nextJin

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2009
1,848
0
0
Training other fighters is something they would do to keep western powers obligated elsewhere, getting a nuke is the only way they prevent an occupation.

It makes perfect sense if you are completely surrounded by superior armies who need little reason to destroy you.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY