Ok, that is true, he is only nominally the leader and the other guys opinions are not as entirely clear. But I think that it is pretty reasonable to assume that they are fundementally in agreement here. Given the chances to do some of the stuff the “President” claims to want to do , I think that they will be pretty happy to go along with it. Why should we take the risk , assuming it is a credible threat and we can do anything about it though? I think someone would be insane to take that risk in that context.
Hell, I would not trust the stragetic issues ( like the anti-nuke shields ) to do much to stop them trying. Certainly if they were to bomb say ..Isreal or other allies of America.
. But he isn’t the real leader of Iran, Khamenei and the ruling religious counse l are. It remains to be seen whether or not they are as stupid or insane as Ahmadinejad appears to be.
Does this point matter when their religion is militant Islam?
Ahmedinejad could not have become the president of Iran without the approval of the mullahs as they approve every name on the ballot.
I can’t imagine they’d pick someone that they considered nutty. So if Ahmedinejad is nutty, he must not be too different from them.
This is one reason why I said it is reasonable to assume that they are going to pick someone that agrees with them for this role. At least in terms of religous and political fundamentals. Fat chance they are going to pick someone that doesnt agree with them. And if they did, I guess we would hear about more dissent between their President and their wishes? Or maybe not, I dont know.
I just think the logical conclusion is that whoever *is* in power is accurately represented by the lunatic we hear from all the time.
The thing about being a theocrat is this: you have an interest in picking religious extremists as puppet figureheads even if you think they’re nuts. I’m not saying that the mullahs will be willing or capable of holding back Amahdinejad if he really wants to use nukes. I’m saying that focusing on that possibility at the expense of more likely scenarios is not persuasive to me (not that I really need to be persuaded). Iran’s rulers must go. Allowing them a nuclear sheild is a VERY bad plan, military action is warranted.
We do know that they have a nuclear research body do we not and that they are trying to do *something* with nuclear technology. Should we take our chances with these madmen and wait till the evidence is *not* flimsy before we take out their insane leaders and become damn sure that they are never able to pursue the production of and use of nuclear weapons?
fact, Pakistan has nuclear weapons and they haven’t been hijacked by the fundamentalists that run half that country. at least yet
qyestions,
Isn’t it quiet possible, in fact more likely, that just as the mullahs chose a stirring figurehead, the same system chooses to have a stirring weapon that can provide the illusion of a shield to the population against what they clearly see as *amurican imperialism*?
Since Iran doesn’t represent a risk directly to the United States of America, or New Zealand for that matter, wouldn’t Ayn Rand’s stance be of arming and helping the State of Israel instead of actually sacrificing American (or kiwi) blood?
And more importantly. Does anyone here consider that the middle east conflict might be a zero sum game for protection of hydrocarbons veiled by religion and politics? Just consider what just “happened” in Libya.
Generally, I thought the author is being a little too “half-clever”.
Nobody can doubt that Iran would like the world to know is at the very least playing with the idea; or, may be ‘forced’ to go that route to ‘defend’ itself from its enemies. If this is all a bluff, it is a very dangerous one.
Having already established itself as a nuclear player, why not go the whole hog?
The self-justification and motive is there, all that remains is the capability. The ‘mays’ have it right, I think.
fact, Pakistan has nuclear weapons and they haven’t been hijacked by the fundamentalists that run half that country. at least yet
Another case of the argument by false analogy fallacy rearing its head. Iran is not Pakistan, nor is very comparable in this context.
I have already stated that I believe it to be illogical to assume that these mullahs etc are NOT picking a president that for the most part accurately reflects upon their fundamental political views and aspirations. In any case, do you feel like taking the risk ? Why should we?
I also think it is evasive/ignorant to try claim that Iran is not a threat to the US ( it is already one in the sense that it apparently funds terrorist acts against America and helps some of these attacks to be possible ) or that it could and would not become one if nobody stops it.
Of course, nobody said anything about sacriciing “Kiwi” blood to stop Iran. NZ has no army of sufficent strength to try such a thing and it knows that. The best NZ could do is to involve some of its SAS ( special forces ) troops in some sort of military strike/campaign. Which is arguably a reasonable step if Iran is a credible threat to New Zealands allies.
And more importantly. Does anyone here consider that the middle east conflict might be a zero sum game for protection of hydrocarbons veiled by religion and politics? Just consider what just “happened” in Libya.
Another case of the argument by false analogy fallacy rearing its head. Iran is not Pakistan, nor is very comparable in this context.
I just stated the fact that one Third World muslim country already has nukes. Incidentally the Western part of that country borders with both Afghanistan and Iran and is governed by several chiefdoms where the government dares not enter. Those chiefdoms are/were aligned with Taliban and people who have already attacked America in the past - unlike Iran where at least there is some order.
I have already stated that I believe it to be illogical to assume that these mullahs etc are NOT picking a president that for the most part accurately reflects upon their fundamental political views and aspirations. In any case, do you feel like taking the risk ? Why should we?
I also think it is evasive/ignorant to try claim that Iran is not a threat to the US ( it is already one in the sense that it apparently funds terrorist acts against America and helps some of these attacks to be possible ) or that it could and would not become one if nobody stops it.
Even more apparently it is Saudi Arabia the financier of the groups that have killed American citizens by the thousands. And British, Indian and Spanish. The groups financed by Saudi Arabia apparently train in Afghanistan and the aforementioned border region of a country that has had nuclear missiles for decades.
Iran has funded groups that have killed some Americans in occupied Iraq (even if rightly so, it’s a war or extended military engagement), and in Israel/Lebanon. In the case of Israel, I believe I heard Ayn Rand saying that the moral thing to do is to help the Israelis in any financial and moral way we can. I could not agree more.
Of course, nobody said anything about sacriciing “Kiwi” blood to stop Iran. NZ has no army of sufficent strength to try such a thing and it knows that. The best NZ could do is to involve some of its SAS ( special forces ) troops in some sort of military strike/campaign. Which is arguably a reasonable step if Iran is a credible threat to New Zealands allies.
That was a bit tongue in cheek, it struck me that you’d be so belligerent (or defensively/preemptively belligerent) when 1) the country you are a citizen of is in the situation you described and 2) your government kicked an American nuclear vessel out of your disproportionately large territorial waters weakening ANZUS.
Why on Earth would we think this?
Because oil is a vital geostrategic resource and we (all players on Earth) need time. Isn’t it evasive not to think this?
Ok sure, Saudi Arabi is another country that I might consider to be a [potential] threat as well. However we are not talking about Saudi Arabi and other Middle Eastern nations that might need to be taken out , we are talking about Iran.
So what if “my country” takes that attitude? I am not my country nor do I generally agree with the political decisions the leaders of my country makds. Nor does my country being in the position it is , prevent me from taking a rational stand on what America ( or other countries for that matter) should do in response to the threat Iran poses.
True, we are talking about Iran, but it’s impossible to drop the geopolitical context. By your own admission (and even drudgereport’s) Iran’s main threat is through Hezbollah, the “foreign operations” outgrowth of the Revolutionary Guard. It’s valid to note that they act mostly (if not only) in the pockets of shia islam outside Iran, like Lebanon and parts of Iraq (in the case of iraq, for longer and before American occupation). In the case of Lebanon it mixes with Israel, which in fact makes it a Middle East subject.
On the other hand, I can not see how oil is not playing a big part in this. The gulf has been enduring a “cold war” between Iran and other American allies, specifically UAE, Qatar, Bahrein, Kwait and Saudi Arabia.
The real threat to American (and to a point Worldwide) security is Iran sabotaging or occupying extensive oil fields, which would cause violence and maybe collapse back at home among compatriots.
So I fully acknowledge the threat but the moral cost of intervention can not be so easily shaken off as directly as, say, intervention in Afghanistan and Pakistan in retaliation of 9/11 (and why not, the Saudi Kingdom of the two scimitars).
Even if Iran gives us a show of craziness, (much like the Soviets did for years with their religious confidence in flawed economical practices), it is still a country of millions of somewhat civilized people that have other priorities than bringing about catastrophe. Even the religious mullahs have other 6 or so pillars of faith besides jihad. They really seem to be trying to show defensive force to avoid being “intervened” by the United States. Why can’t you assume that the fear is reciprocal, that preemptive attacks are also thought by both parties, and that in the end that would lead to just another MAD policy? Do you really think that the Pentagon would not be taking the necessary preemptive measures if there was an actual threat to American soil through such ridiculously conventional warfare in an age of anonymous, at least a-national terrorism?
@NZ issue. That’s why I took care to say the country you are a citizen of, instead of your country. I’m not American either and I never agree with the decisions the government I’m a subject of. not of importance.
I am not ignoiring the "geopolitical’ situaton. I simply want us to confine ourselves to Iran or facts clearly relevant to Iran and whether or not it is a [potential] nuclear threat. Pakistan really has nothing / little to do with it.
Care to prove the speculation about oil or to provide a reason to think oil has much to do with it?
If you know I am not my country, then how does what my country thinks in this regard have anything to do with this discussion? Beyond the fact that we are unlikely to want to be of much help, even if NZ was able to (though we have one of the best SAS forces in the world apparently, and this could potentially be a big help).
Care to prove the speculation about oil or to provide a reason to think oil has much to do with it?
Oil is a finite resource (you’ll be able to find proof of it) and a large proportion of it is split between the American-allied-Gulf States and Iran. In fact a disproportionate percentage of World reserves lies in this anti-Western, pro China and Russia, country.
Our civilization ultimately needs this resource to keep the wheels of life moving until the infrastructure is re built to work on another fuel (just as it’s happened a couple of times since the beginning of the industrial revolution) .
Even if we don’t want to repeat threads about the Iraqi invasion of 2003, it is still WELL within reasonable doubt that oil has a lot to do with this. Just consider that the Iranians think of protecting their oil as one of their reasons to develop a nuclear shield (the other being that two/three(paki) out of the six countries it borders by land has already been occupied by their foe).
That is why in your hypothetical situation, it might be about oil. I wanted evidence for why in reality this *is* largely about oil.
And no, it is not withing reasonable doubt that the Iraqi invasion was about oil. The fact that the Iranians worry about protecting their oil is certainly not a reason to think this.
Even though if Iran is invaded, the invaders might decide to take advantage of the oil resources there anyway. But that will not a primary motvating factor behind the conflict. / invasion.
God, I wish they would just nuke the whole middle east so that people wouldn’t make the silly argument anymore that this has to do with oil instead of terrorism. The point is to kill and eliminate, terrorists, anybody that can potentially support the terrorists including any friends, family, religious supporters, governments that support it or might potentially support it, etc. None of this has to do with walls of words about “geopolitical situations” and definitely absolutely nothing to do with oil.
That is why in your hypothetical situation, it might be about oil. I wanted evidence for why in reality this *is* largely about oil.
I was the one who was asking the question following question.
And more importantly. Does anyone here consider that the middle east conflict might be a zero sum game for protection of hydrocarbons veiled by religion and politics? Just consider what just “happened” in Libya
I see yours is no. And Eric is also no.
interesting.
Also interesting EC’s absolute evasion of 1) my proposal that oil is finite and essential for at least a window of time, and a disproportionate part of it is in Iran, and Iran’s neighbours.
I repeatedly acknowledged Iran’s threat as a sponsor of terrorism.
Iran’s main threat is through Hezbollah, the “foreign operations” outgrowth of the Revolutionary Guard. It’s valid to note that they act mostly (if not only) in the pockets of shia islam outside Iran (…) In the case of Lebanon it mixes with Israel, which in fact makes it a Middle East subject
and therefore more complicated as Israel already has nuclear capability and has not preemptively struck Iran yet as it did with Iraq before. Israel seems more preoccupied with the distributed character of “post-modern” warfare (terrorism) which clearly can’t be eradicated by occupying countries ad infinitum.