One of the biggest problems with dealing with a borderline theocracy like Iran is that while the current regime may be realistic, there is no guarantee that the following one will be.
Printable View
One of the biggest problems with dealing with a borderline theocracy like Iran is that while the current regime may be realistic, there is no guarantee that the following one will be.
Eisenhower's biographer, Dean Acheson, and the CIA would all disagree, but yes, the momentum to get rid of Mossadeq came from the Brits. Kinzer's latest book clearly demonstrates the role of the US and CIA in Iran before turning our attention to toppling the regime in Guatemala.Quote:
Originally Posted by NDD
To say that an Islamist Regime would have eventually come to power regardless of western interference in internal Iranian politics, and the brutality of the Shah and the Savak is an empty assertion.
We need to remember that the Iranians hold elections for president, unlike the Saudis or Pakistanis. They have a more democratic process that our allies in Jordan and Egypt.
How is it an empty assertion? What would have stopped them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Strickland
The Ayatollah Kashani helped put Mossadeq into power, they were already players in Iran even back then.
In my attempts to what?Quote:
Originally Posted by aktarian
Mossadeq's removal was about Anglo-Iranian Oil - later BP. Mostly a Brit problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Strickland
One more reason not to trigger an insurection to topple it. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Blair
Not you as an individual but you as US. Sorry for not being clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by NDD
If current atempts to pput check on Iranian troublemaking are toothless US should put more teeth into it.
Hi evryone,
I think that Iran will not be a place of next small war , if we're talking about insurgection or guerilla warfare. Even if US will try to support something like this, there will be very small popular support if we mean pro - US, pro - democracy movement. (I suspect that only very small student groups would support ). This only will make current goverment more supported by people, you know why radical movements managed to gain so much poular support and managed to overthrow Shah. I think that Iran will be likely at war, because of its WMD program, but i don't think that there will be even ground war. I expect a series of air raids, to destroy installations.
Robal2pl
But in this case you have no guarantee that the "legitimate" follow-on to the current regime will be practical.Quote:
Originally Posted by aktarian
I would also point out as an aside that it's not just the U.S. that needs to monitor Iran's programs. There are other nations that have (or should have) an interest in such things.
It depends on who next guys are. If it's just new geenration of mullahs it will be same. If it's young non-clerical leadership they woun't play by religious rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Blair
Of course this doesn't mean they will be friendly to West but they woun't be hostile either.
I think they do. And Iran isn't hostile to others same way as it's toward US or Israel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Blair
Gents,
Small wars as defined by the USMC are already taking place. Darfur , Sudan has seen US airlift transporting my old friends, the Rwandan Patriotic Army, as peacekeepers. The "small war" in the Congo has claimed more than 3 MILLION dead since 1997; periodic flare ups are routine. Zimbabwe is headed toward the abyss; look for bloodletting there in the near to mid term.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict morphs and bubbles as it has since the mid-1930s. I fervently hope that we stay out of that one. Distance and balance are our only friends in that long struggle.
Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria are all candidates for a fiction writer's potential best seller on turmoil. Such fiction would hardly be a stretch.
I won't go into Iraq; the schisms before the war are there after the war. They will be there when we leave.
Those are my regions: Asia, South Asia, Latin America, Eurasia all have their flarepoints.
The commonality between small wars to me has always been they only surprise policy makers; the locals and others who know the regional issues can usually see them coming.
Best
Tom Odom
It already has according to an Israeli News Site DEBKA.Quote:
Originally Posted by NDD
"October 15, 2005, 6:23 PM (GMT+02:00)
Ethnic Arabs in oil-rich Khuzestan have been waging an insurgency against Tehran for most of this year. In September, a series of blasts halted oil transfers from onshore wells.
Iran accusing UK of setting bombs in Market"
I saw that as well. I can understand not wanting to admit any internal issues and keeping face, but the Brits? LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by GatorLHA2
Perhaps not trigger it, but I would have no problem supporting it if it broke out spontaneously.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by aktarian
Can someone explain to me the necessity of this question in this context?
By itself, a question of whether we rather be challenged by a crazy regime or a realistic one may be interesting.
In reality it seems IMO to have more to do with timing and their demise. Whether or not Iran is realistic, or a potential successor is, we, including Israel, is facing a threat in regard to their WMD program and continued sponsoring of terrorist groups. They seek our destruction and their own rise. Their realism only change their tactics and the timing according to their capabilities.
The idea, the perverted thinking has to change.
It is quite obvious that they will not succeed in international competition as they are today. Let them continue exporting terrorism and destabilize the region. So do we rather wait for them to become desperate as their oil lessens in importance? Or do we rather give them a 300 Megaton bargaining chip right away? If they don't succeed in acquiring a nuclear bomb now it'll be something else the next time. Nuclear bombs don't kill people, people kill people.
It seems we're discussing whether to put two rounds in the chest or in the head.
Time will distribute death as it always has, something will inevitably come after the current regime and what is allowed during the presently hostile regime will blossom. The culture has to change.
Martin
Recent reports from Nuevo Laredo and Aculpoco suggest that the Zeta narco terrorist and other drug gangs are fighting turf battles that the government is unable to respond to. In Nuevo Laredo the combat has been open at times and the latest surviving chief of police has made it clear that he does not intend to enforce the rule of law when it comes to the drug war. A report today, that you can check on my blog, indicates several murders in Aculpoco including high police officials. At this point the Zetas control more real estate in Mexico than al Qaeda controls in Iraq. These guys are also targeting law enforcement officals in the US. They are already a paramilitary force with training received back when they were in the Mexican army.
Recently the US and the State of Texas have beefed up law enforcment in the Laredo area, but I would not recomend going across the Rio Grande for adult beverages.
While I agree that Chavez is a potential adversary, I think any conflict with him would be more conventional. He has real assets he has to protect.
If it's open support it will allow regime to rally people around the flag and allow them to portrait insurgents as foreign mercenaries.Quote:
Originally Posted by NDD
ALCON,
I have been having some difficulty following this threat, but I have yet to see anny comments about the small wars occurring in the arc of conflict from Bangladesh to the Phillipines.
If there is one place that small wars could lead to a larger conflict between China and the U.S. it is in this volatile reagion so vital to U.S. long term interests and security strategy.
That's DEBKA, my friend. Rather large pinches of salt required.Quote:
Originally Posted by GatorLHA2
Two cents.
I thought the USMC defined Small Wars as operations undertaken under executive authority, wherein military force is combined with diplomatic pressure in the internal or external affairs of another state whose government is unstable, inadequate, or unsatisfactory for the preservation of life and of such interests as are determined by the foreign policy of our Nation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Odom
-- Small Wars Manual, 1940
It appears as if many of the previous responses refer to conflicts that are limited in size or scope, and thus improperly labeled Small Wars.