IRAN

wilton said:
I'm not suggesting sending troops and I'm only using Iran's statements toward Israel as an example of their hypocrisy. Why should we change our behavior when they show no indication of changing theirs? They still call for the destruction of Israel and support terrorist activities in the region.
Click to expand...

You keep talking about Israel .. I keep talking about the United States .. they are not one in the same.

Why should we change our behavior?

.. because we have to

.. because our miserably failed misadventure in Iraq has empowered the Iranians beyond their wildest dreams

.. because sanctions will not work

.. because our military options are few

.. and because of all the things Charver just said
 
blackascoal said:
You keep talking about Israel .. I keep talking about the United States .. they are not one in the same.

Why should we change our behavior?

.. because we have to

.. because our miserably failed misadventure in Iraq has empowered the Iranians beyond their wildest dreams

.. because sanctions will not work

.. because our military options are few

.. and because of all the things Charver just said
Click to expand...

If Iran insists on isolating itself from the west thats fine with me. That's basically what they're doing.

The basic point I was trying to make with this thread was to find out what people think will be Obama's approach to Iran. I think that our basic policy over the last few decade has been fairly effective. Sanctions and if we get actionable intelligence of a nuclear weapons program, we should bomb the shit out of it. No invasion, let them sort shit out for themselves.

I don't think our military options are few. We've basically got them surrounded (Iraq, Afghanistan). *Now let fly all the accusations of how inept the most powerful military in the history of mankind is.

How do you think we should approach Iran?
 
charver said:
Iran has also offered to negotiate everything in recent years including recognition of Israel and conversion of Hezbollah to a purely political organisation.

They helped you out with intelligence in Afghanistan (which was readily accepted) and offered to do the same in Iraq (which the Whitehouse rejected outright).
Click to expand...

The only statement of recognizing Israel I could find was a scientist saying that they may recognize Israel in several years. Not from anybody who has effective influence in foreign policy. Do you have another example?
 
wilton said:
The only statement of recognizing Israel I could find was a scientist saying that they may recognize Israel in several years. Not from anybody who has effective influence in foreign policy. Do you have another example?
Click to expand...

That's why i said they offered to put recognition of Israel "on the table" rather than make an offer outright.

It's a bargaining chip that they won't give away without some quid pro quo agreement on lifting sanctions at least. The offer was rejected by the State department anyway so who knows where it may have led, if anywhere?
 
charver said:
That's why i said they offered to put recognition of Israel "on the table" rather than make an offer outright.

It's a bargaining chip that they won't give away without some quid pro quo agreement on lifting sanctions at least. The offer was rejected by the State department anyway so who knows where it may have led, if anywhere?
Click to expand...

I don't know that if I was making decisions in this matter that I would be able to take this "offer" serious. If they were serious about this why wouldn't it come from one of the heads of state or at least from they're equivalent to our state department?
 
wilton said:
I don't know that if I was making decisions in this matter that I would be able to take this "offer" serious. If they were serious about this why wouldn't it come from one of the heads of state or at least from they're equivalent to our state department?
Click to expand...

Maybe it was serious maybe it wasn't. Given the state of US Iranian relations at the time you were never going to get an offer direct from the Iranian government.

As i say, it's impossible to say how genuine the offer was but the fact it was brushed aside without further investigation was typical of the stance of the Bush administration at that time and may have been a lost opportunity.
 
wilton said:
If Iran insists on isolating itself from the west thats fine with me. That's basically what they're doing.

The basic point I was trying to make with this thread was to find out what people think will be Obama's approach to Iran. I think that our basic policy over the last few decade has been fairly effective. Sanctions and if we get actionable intelligence of a nuclear weapons program, we should bomb the shit out of it. No invasion, let them sort shit out for themselves.

I don't think our military options are few. We've basically got them surrounded (Iraq, Afghanistan). *Now let fly all the accusations of how inept the most powerful military in the history of mankind is.

How do you think we should approach Iran?
Click to expand...

I do appreciate your thoughtfulness on this issue, but I completely disgaree with your assessments of it.

Our approach to Iran has been an ineffective failure and has led to a further expansion of their influence in the region. Today, Iran is far more powerful and influential in the region than they were 10 years ago.

"actionable intelligence" .. like we used to invade Iraq, or that we're using to chase ghosts/terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan .. both of which has only gotten worse? Bombing on "actionable intelligence" is a failure and it only leads to creating more terrorists.

Even if we had such intelligence, bombing hardened bunkers is no guarantee of success.

But the most important reason that we will not bomb Iran, nor do I believe will the Israelis, is the Strait of Hormuz. A narrow waterway only 34 km wide, a third of the worlds oil passes through the Strait and Iran dominates almost the entire length of it. Bomb Iran and they will block the Strait as Iranian leaders have said ... and they can effectively defend it with missiles and artillery from land or sea.

.. and guess what they just bought from the Russians?

Now we're talking about unintended consequences and perhaps American lives. Bomb Iran and the price of oil goes through the roof. Oil might reach 300dollars a barrel.

Our fragile economy would collapse.

Additionally, best not count on Iraqis .. they hate us more than the Iranians do .. and they are majority Shite. Bomb Iranand Americans troops stuck in Iraq are going to catch hell.

Our military options are few .. which is why Obama is looking for another way out. How do we afford wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran all at the same time? It is no secret that we cannot.

The only sane course on Iran is to recognize they have valid reasoms to distrust the US and Israel .. and they have every right to defend themselves. Israel has nukes.

Additonally, sanctions will not work. Europe is not with us and they have no love lost for Israel. Don't get it twisted brother .. Iran is not isolated, not by the europeans, not even by us.

Diplomacy is the only option.

The world has changed .. no one is afraid of us.
 
Last edited:
I say we advocate for Islamist interests in the middleeast, even if it's just as revenge on the jews for treating our country like a toilet.
 
charver said:
There we have it. The voice of "common sense". :D

I thought you may come up with something a little better than the 'blame everyone else it's not our fault' argument but, sadly, we live in a world of disappointment. Just keep on repeating "God Bless America" and everything will be fine in your world of apple pie and right-wing rhetoric.

Seeing as you didn't answer the question i'll just take your response as a "i don't know" (it's usually a safe bet in your case). Unless you want to argue that your foreign policy toward Iran has been a success? Go on, there must be something you could point to as a little success, even if it's a teeny-tiny itsy-bitsy ickle thing.
Click to expand...

You didn't ask a good question. You asked a knee jerk rhetorical question that was unworthy of an (a) or (b) choice.

The foreign policy towards Iran has been as good as it can be in light of the radical influence of anti-American fundi rule it serves to influence. Grow up and stop pretending you have the answers nailed down, it's obvious you do not. Perhaps you want to argue that we "installed" the Shah? LOL

I note apart from some singing to your choir of like minded sophmoric pals you failed to have anything worthwhile to say so you might want to refrain from doing the kettle/pot thingy.
 
Last edited:
Ice Dancer said:
You didn't ask a good question. You asked a knee jerk rhetorical question that was unworthy of an (a) or (b) choice.

The foreign policy towards Iran has been as good as it can be in light of the radical influence of anti-American fundi rule it serves to influence. Grow up and stop pretending you have the answers nailed down, it's obvious you do not. Perhaps you want to argue that we "installed" the Shah? LOL

I note apart from some singing to your choir of like minded sophmoric pals you failed to have anything worthwhile to say so you might want to refrain from doing the kettle/pot thingy.
Click to expand...

Look if you can't point to any successes in your failed Iran policy just say so, there's no shame in it.

Acceptance is the first step you know.

Or perhaps you'd just like to carry on whining about "cowardly" Europeans a little more. Go on put a little effort in and surprise me. You can probably do it given a couple of days really, really hard thinking time.
 
Last edited:
charver said:
Look if you can't point to any successes in your failed Iran policy just say so, there's no shame in it.

Acceptance is the first step you know.

Or perhaps you'd just like to carry on whining about "cowardly" Europeans a little more. Go on put a little effort in and surprise me. You can probably do it given a couple of days really, really hard thinking time.
Click to expand...

Why are you a communist?
 
Actually let's just settle this once and for all.

Generally a nation's foreign policy would involve attempting a workable relationship with another State (clue: that's not the one America has been following) or containing and neutralising a potential threat.

So let's take a closer look at the results of this fantastic foreign policy shall we?

The Nuclear Threat. Even you can probably understand that nuclear bombs are generally viewed by US administrations as "a bad thing" in the hands of anyone who isn't American. Presumably you don't want Iran to develop a nuclear bomb. Iran is well on the way to developing a nuclear bomb. There was a deal on the table for the Iranians to halt all uranium enrichment in return for some economic rewards but, predictably, that was scuppered by...who was it again? Oh, that's right, the Bush Whitehouse. Iranian uranium enrichment continues apace. Bet you wish you'd never helped set up Iran's nuclear programme in the first place now, eh? Policy success rating - Fail.

Regional Influence - The aim here would presumably be to isolate the Iranian regime and reduce it's influence. What has actually happened from 1979 to the present day is precisely the opposite. Since the Iran-Iraq war, in which you funded our old friend Saddam, and latterly Mr Bush's well-thought out "axis of evil" speech, Iran and Syria (never the best of bedfellows in the past) have become great mates. Iranian influence in Lebanon and the Gaza strip have increased. Iran's enemies (and yours remember), the Taliban, were ousted from power and although things have slipped somewhat in recent years they do have influence among the Afghan warlords and the government (if you can call it that). And then there is the coup de grace - Iraq. Always viewed as a bulwark to Iran's Islamic Republic, US action has allowed the exiles in Iran to return and exert significant Iranian influence in regional and national government and on the ground amongst the various militia groups. Policy success rating - Fail.

Terrorism - Again this would fall under the category of "a bad thing". Nobody likes to likes to see bits and pieces of former human beings splattered all over a road somewhere and that's before we talk about the poor bugger who has to clear it all up. During the course of the last 30 years the US would have like to have dissuaded Iran from funding terrorist groups who indulged in the killing of Americans and your allies. Hezbollah is still taking the Iranian Rial (although, somewhat ironically they probably pay them in dollars) and they have been joined in the trough by their traditional rivals Hamas. So the outcome of US threats and refusal to talk has been the expansion of Iranian funding for terrorist groups and, for a time, the transfer of Iranian made IED's into Iraq to kill British and American troops. Policy success rating - Fail.

I'm assuming that you still disagree, even in the face of the overwhelming evidence of policy failure. Even the most intransigent Iran-hating President you've ever had, that nice Mr Bush jnr., eventually came to realise that 30 years of threats had achieved precisely nothing and attempted to talk to Iran. Unfortunately the Iranians, by that time dealing with a lame duck President, with a more hard-line government in place at home (yes, you can put that down as yet another US policy failure) and having been rebuffed on several occasions in the past, refused to take the final step and put their trust in a President who had shown them nothing but hostility, threats and that right-wing rhetoric you yourself are so fond of.

In summary the future course is rather obvious, no? You have failed to contain Iranian influence, nuclear ambition and terrorist funding while watching the Iranian regime strengthen and become more hard-line. Unless this is a fiendish multi-layered master plan to lull Iran into a pandemic of hysterical laughter as they watch America stumbling about like a blind man in a field of rakes and cacti, leaving their now-vulnerable borders guarded only by creased up men in army fatigues unable to lift a rifle due to their incessant giggling fits?

Let's continue to follow the same road that has led you down a rather dark, dangerous dead-end shall we? Yes, it's produced nothing of value since its inception but that doesn't mean to say that, given another 30 years or so, it may bear some fruit. America's national interests are clearly best served by pointing, shouting a lot about "the bad men over there" (you could maybe start a chant about the Europeans if you'd like) while hoping nobody noticed your vaunted policy is as about as sound as your grasp on economics.
 
Last edited:
charver said:
Actually let's just settle this once and for all.

Generally a nation's foreign policy would involve attempting a workable relationship with another State (clue: that's not the one America has been following) or containing and neutralising a potential threat.

So let's take a closer look at the results of this fantastic foreign policy shall we?

The Nuclear Threat. Even you can probably understand that nuclear bombs are generally viewed by US administrations as "a bad thing" in the hands of anyone who isn't American. Presumably you don't want Iran to develop a nuclear bomb. Iran is well on the way to developing a nuclear bomb. There was a deal on the table for the Iranians to halt all uranium enrichment in return for some economic rewards but, predictably, that was scuppered by...who was it again? Oh, that's right, the Bush Whitehouse. Iranian uranium enrichment continues apace. Bet you wish you'd never helped set up Iran's nuclear programme in the first place now, eh? Policy success rating - Fail.

Regional Influence - The aim here would presumably be to isolate the Iranian regime and reduce it's influence. What has actually happened from 1979 to the present day is precisely the opposite. Since the Iran-Iraq war, in which you funded our old friend Saddam, and latterly Mr Bush's well-thought out "axis of evil" speech, Iran and Syria (never the best of bedfellows in the past) have become great mates. Iranian influence in Lebanon and the Gaza strip have increased. Iran's enemies (and yours remember), the Taliban, were ousted from power and although things have slipped somewhat in recent years they do have influence among the Afghan warlords and the government (if you can call it that). And then there is the coup de grace - Iraq. Always viewed as a bulwark to Iran's Islamic Republic, US action has allowed the exiles in Iran to return and exert significant Iranian influence in regional and national government and on the ground amongst the various militia groups. Policy success rating - Fail.

Terrorism - Again this would fall under the category of "a bad thing". Nobody likes to likes to see bits and pieces of former human beings splattered all over a road somewhere and that's before we talk about the poor bugger who has to clear it all up. During the course of the last 30 years the US would have like to have dissuaded Iran from funding terrorist groups who indulged in the killing of Americans and your allies. Hezbollah is still taking the Iranian Rial (although, somewhat ironically they probably pay them in dollars) and they have been joined in the trough by their traditional rivals Hamas. So the outcome of US threats and refusal to talk has been the expansion of Iranian funding for terrorist groups and, for a time, the transfer of Iranian made IED's into Iraq to kill British and American troops. Policy success rating - Fail.

I'm assuming that you still disagree, even in the face of the overwhelming evidence of policy failure. Even the most intransigent Iran-hating President you've ever had, that nice Mr Bush jnr., eventually came to realise that 30 years of threats had achieved precisely nothing and attempted to talk to Iran. Unfortunately the Iranians, by that time dealing with a lame duck President, with a more hard-line government in place at home (yes, you can put that down as yet another US policy failure) and having been rebuffed on several occasions in the past, refused to take the final step and put their trust in a President who had shown them nothing but hostility, threats and that right-wing rhetoric you yourself are so fond of.

In summary the future course is rather obvious, no? You have failed to contain Iranian influence, nuclear ambition and terrorist funding while watching the Iranian regime strengthen and become more hard-line. Unless this is a fiendish multi-layered master plan to lull Iran into a pandemic of hysterical laughter as they watch America stumbling about like a blind man in a field of rakes and cacti, leaving their now-vulnerable borders guarded only by creased up men in army fatigues unable to lift a rifle due to their incessant giggling fits?

Let's continue to follow the same road that has led you down a rather dark, dangerous dead-end shall we? Yes, it's produced nothing of value since its inception but that doesn't mean to say that, given another 30 years or so, it may bear some fruit. America's national interests are clearly best served by pointing, shouting a lot about "the bad men over there" (you could maybe start a chant about the Europeans if you'd like) while hoping nobody noticed your vaunted policy is as about as sound as your grasp on economics.
Click to expand...

:hand: :hand: :hand: :hand:
 
wilton said:
If Iran insists on isolating itself from the west thats fine with me. That's basically what they're doing.

The basic point I was trying to make with this thread was to find out what people think will be Obama's approach to Iran. I think that our basic policy over the last few decade has been fairly effective.
Click to expand...

Look, I'm not one for appeasement but by any objective measures the conservative foreign policy strategies of the previous 8 years have been a strategic disaster.

But to begin to resolve our issues with Iran first we have to start a dialogue with them. Nixon's opening a dialogue with a hostile China and beginning the process of normalization was probably the greatest US foreign policy acheivement of the last 50 years and certainly the greatest achievement of a failed President. Now look were things are at. China is now the USA's greatest trade partner. Keep in mind, Nixon's first efforts at opening a dialogue were rebuffed due to the Vietnam war.

For the US to be succesful in improving US/Iranian relationships and developing a strategic partnership with Iran, as we did with China, a paradigm shift in US vision, thinking and policy towards Iran will need to occur. First, we need to recognize that our current policy is a failed policy. Second we need to do more than just reach out to Iran, as Obama has done. We need to specifically address Iranian concerns and interests and we need mutually acceptable defintions of the problems existing in the US/Iranian relationship are. The present "neither peace nor war" relationship we and Iran have has to go. It has to be replaced with a relationship in which a mutually acceptable relationship between the two nations has been defined by both nations.

The first price the US will have to pay is to recognize and declare the Iranian regime as a "normal country" with a "normal regime" and that the US does not nor will not seek regime change in Iran. The US will have to recognize that a strong Iran is not a dangerous Iran and that any negotiations will have to envision Iran as a future strategic partner and not as a "well behaved nation" or a "client state".

The first price Iran will have to pay is to accept a two state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict as supported by the Arab league and the UN. Further, Iran would cease providing military support to Hezbolla and Hamas. Acceptance of those two groups as political groups could be attained if they were to actually stop violence against Israel. Next they would have to agree to a freeze on Uranium enrichment, of a preset duration, while allowing Iran to mantain it's right to develop nuclear energy for civilian purposes. The Iranian Islamic Republic would also need to allow free and fair elections as is required by its membership in the United Nations.

Not a panecea but a good start and it all starts with creating a dialogue and a paradigm shift towards a strategic alliance, as we began in the 70's with China.
 
Last edited:
Mottleydude said:
Dude, are you kidding me? Every professional policy expert I've heard in recent years has called our middle eastern policy a failure. Have you been hiding in a cave for the last year?

Look, I'm not one for appeasement but by any objective measures the conservative foreign policy strategies of the previous 8 years have been a strategic disaster by any objective measure.

And you're back to my main point. How can conservatives have any credibility on this subject when their policies have been disastrous and they adamantly refuse to admit to their mistakes?
Click to expand...

The question answers itself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top