But the Ayatollahs are nothing if not true believers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
the root cause is various actions of the Government of Iran.
You have to be a true believer in the free market to crank up a privatization program in the context of sanctions preventing international investments in your country.
The deal the West could strike with Iran
A rare insight into the diplomacy with Iran, by a retired British diplomat, including the offers made - which the author contends should have been accepted:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...with-Iran.html
I cite the last two paragraphs:
Quote:
At the moment, however, we are locked into a process of imposing ever tighter sanctions on Iran. This economic warfare has many drawbacks. It requires an exaggeration of the Iranian “threat” that fuels the scare-mongering of those who want this pressure to be a mere step on the way to war. It risks provoking retaliation, while hurting ordinary Iranians. And it risks higher oil prices that the West can ill afford. Moreover, even if Iran were unexpectedly to give way, coercion rarely delivers durable solutions. Its effect on motives is unpredictable. It can breed resentment, while restrictions can be circumvented in time.
It may be asking a lot of our leaders that they swallow their words, lower their sights and focus on a realistic target. They could do it, though, and the talks due to take place shortly in Turkey could be the setting for a change of course. What is much more likely, unhappily, is that we will continue to see a variant on the devil having the best tunes. Far too many American politicians see advantage in whipping up fear of Iran. I can almost hear them sneering that the NPT is for wimps. The odds must be that they will continue to propel the West toward yet another Gulf war. Still, nothing is inevitable.
True -- and with respect to monetary and fiscal movement, rarely do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
Event and its causes do not need to have the same date.
However, Government tinkering is most often the root cause. In the US , the result then gets the sitting President applause or disapproval when he likely had little to do with it. Same deal with wars and such... ;)
In the case of Iran, folks within get the word out that a combination of official corruption and poor policies jointly lead to poor results, exacerbated by the sanctions and resultant smuggling (both a result of government policy).
Living with a nuclear-armed Iran?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Strickland
Why is a nuclear-armed Iran incompatible with our vital national interest? In lay terms - why cant we live with a nuclear-armed Iran?
A good question and one that could be asked about other nations that have gained a nuclear weapons capability: Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea, South Africa (renounced), Libya (renounced) and Ukraine (renounced).
So in lay terms I'd say:
1) Geography - being in a rather volatile region
2) History of relations, or lack of them between Iran and the USA since 1979
3) The Israel-US relationship, notably within American politics
4) A Western policy of avoiding more nuclear capable states, NPT etc
5) Fear that Iran is a crazy, irrational state - in American and a few other's eyes
6) The fear that other nuclear capable nations will decide to go for weapons
If for example Brazil decided to for weapons, how would the West react? Could the USA live with that decision? Many nations are known to have considered going for nuclear weapons since 1945, without being under duress.
I'd recommend checking this website:http://www.thebulletin.org/
Where I've taken this quote from an article on Iran:
Quote:
Crying wolf. As strategic analysts Anthony Cordesman and Khalil al-Rodhan remind us, in the 1990s, high-level American and Israeli policymakers repeatedly warned of an Iranian bomb by the year 2000. When that did not come to pass, policymakers warned of an Iranian bomb by the year 2005. Then they said it would happen by 2010. Now the talk puts Iran's nuclear debut in the 2013-2015 time frame, if not sooner.
Link:http://www.thebulletin.org/web-editi...n-nuclear-bomb
We could and likely will. No big thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Strickland
Why is a nuclear-armed Iran incompatible with our vital national interest? In lay terms - why cant we live with a nuclear-armed Iran?
Anything in the US that has to do with Iran is much more dependent on US domestic politics than anything else...
Reality is not an issue. :rolleyes:
Consistency is not a US national trait...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Strickland
The factors I find most interesting regarding the Iran debate are the 1979 Hostage Crisis, threat to Israel, proliferation, and terrorism. The world has changed a lot since 1979 (and in many ways is very much the same)...I don't understand why the same outcome is not possible with the Iranians.
Many reasons IMO, foremost among them is that the Iraniha embarrassed us and while many American correctly sense that should not have happened for a variety of reasons, it did and to some, that's unforgivable. Of course, one must also consider that Iran also serves as a neat target to justify a lot of DoD. DoS and others fiscal legerdemain ably abetted by a Congress that needs villains to rail against... :rolleyes:
Quote:
Most Americans fail to appreciate that the second most spectacular terrorist attack of the last 50 years was the MEK attack against the Iranian government in 1981, thus our two nations share the status of being victimized by terrorists.
Heh. True. However, our protection of MEK in recent years hasn't helped... :wry:
Common sense is a not US foreign policy establishment trait... :mad:
The country of non-learners
Hill Poll: Voters willing to see US attack Iran over nuclear weapons
Quote:
Nearly half of likely voters think the United States should be willing to use military force to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, according to this week’s The Hill Poll.
Forty-nine percent said military force should be used, while 31 percent said it should not and 20 percent were not sure.
Sixty-two percent of likely voters said they were somewhat or very concerned about Iran making a terrorist strike on the United States, while 37 percent said they were not very concerned or not at all concerned about it.
Nearly half — 49 percent — of likely voters also said they opposed cutting military spending to balance the federal budget, while 40 percent said it should be reduced.
With hindsight, the Vietnam syndrome of fearing overseas wars was a really, really good thing.
