Iran

[helian]

As to the Iraqi government being sympathetic to Iran, they have to consider an Iran who has interfered with her affairs, supported terror against a democratically elected government, and who the US has been too weak with, but they are hardly sympathetic, have you not heard of the recent orders of the Iraqi government for Sadr to de-arm, they even attacked his forces to do so.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/21/8421/

“The Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, sounds confident that he can win a confrontation with the Sadrists since he is backed by the US, the main Sunni party and the Kurds, all of whom have doubted his leadership in the past. Iran has also openly supported his offensive in Basra while criticising the American air assault on Sadr City.
In the past, Mr Maliki has often been over-confident of his ability to act without American military support. He became prime minister thanks to Mr Sadr’s support but this was withdrawn when Mr Maliki failed to set a timetable for an American withdrawal.”


http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkx- ... wD91MK0880
“Violence in Iraq has dropped to its lowest level in more than four years as a result of the 2007 buildup of American forces, the Sunni revolt against al-Qaida in Iraq and Iraqi government crackdowns against Sunni extremists and Shiite militias, among other factors.”



Iraq is a multi ethnic democracy, the Kurds and Sunni (the latter who now with the Unbar Awakening will vote in large numbers on Oct 1, and get more representation in the democratic government) certainly do not want to see Iranian dominance, but the strange thing is even in the Shia South most Shia have called for Iran to stay out of their affairs.

And all this without an attack on Iran.

Remember Vice President Cheney attempted to keep the NIE report from being published (a clear obstruction of the responsibility to openness) until key members of Office of the Director of National Intelligence threatened to leak it to the media.

The current Iranian regime will be greatly strengthened in its support both inside Iran and externally if Iran was attacked by Israel/US. Any strike could not be contained and would very likely ultimately draw Iran into a long war with Israel and the west.

My argument is not about allowing Iran to possess nuclear weapons. Even the Arab states would not tolerate a nuclear armed Iran without each being compelled to pursue a nuclear arms program of their own, so in fact a nuclear armed Iran would most likely rigger an Arab arms race. Iranians and Arabs do not exactly get along. The Arab states would hardly be comfortable with an Iran that could (at the very least psychologically) dominate the region.

The problem is that an unnecessary attack on Iran could easily compel all Muslim states in the region to stand in solidarity with Iran which would certainly have unpredictable and dangerous consequences. Support for Moqtada al-Sadr (and other clerical and non-clerical warrior zealots) would almost certainly rise inside Iraq, Iran and throughout the region.

While there is hope for negotiation (and there is every indication that there is), why should the west and the rest of the world have to endure potentially yet another decade of serious conflict in the Middle East?

[JW Frogen]

OK, fair enough.

The only problem is Iran is making it increasing clear the only way to stop them from being a nuclear weapons power is by attack. (No one ever claimed they are subtle.)

There will come a time (I think it may be too late) where it is better to play safe than live with sorry.

Verbal condemnation and recriminations are easier to live with than nuclear terrorism.

This is the art of the brave statesman or women.

[freediver]

If Iran has no harmful weapons intent why not obey IAEA directives?

Nationalism. Pride. Politics. Saddam didn't have WMDs either and could have avoided the invasion.

[JW Frogen]

So they are proud, we will take their word for it, they are so proud they are determined to be weak and not back up what they say, despite the IAEA saying otherwise.

Despite their export of terror in Iraq, Lebenon and Gaza.


Despite what they say about the destruction of Israel.

As for Iraq, the Kay Report, the one that conclusively determined Saddam had no WMD also concluded Saddam retained the capacity to get them back quickly, and was determined to do so; that he simply thought after years of inaction and UN weakness the threats of Bush would not be enforced.

That Saddam did not understand Bush was not a UN bureaucrat, he means what he says.

[helian]

That Saddam did not understand Bush was not a UN bureaucrat, he means what he says.

Unlikely, given what happened to Iraq after the invasion of Kuwait. I imagine Saddam was in no doubt about what was likely to be the outcome by defying this particular US President (given that he was the son of the President who had so conclusively defeated him in Gulf War I).

What I believe was the core problem was Arab pride and honour and also what all dictators understand about their regime - that totalitarian power is a double edged sword. Any indication that the dictator is weak or beatable could result in an uprising or at least give heart to the many enemies that dictators necessarily accumulate over their years in power. They must always be seen as strong (invincible, even). Iran's Ahmadinejad is in a similar position. As well as his anti-American stance which won him the Presidency on a wave of anger over the US invasion of Iraq, he promised impoverished Iranians that he would put "Oil profits on the table cloth" - a reference to tackling Iran's economic woes affecting the poorest in Iranian society. However, his economic policies have been an abject failure which has forced him to resort to appearing to be standing up to the US. It is mostly all bluster with the vast majority of "protesters" against the prohibition of Iran's nuclear program (seen in media footage) being largely students and those who are paid to protest being transported in from regional areas to assist with creating an impressive display of anti-Americanism in Tehran.

[JW Frogen]

I agree with some of that, certainly the nature of Arab tyranny has pattern, humiliation from a foreign power can be deadly to the tyrant, still Saddam survived that in 1991, and even with his failed Iran war. There is some indication from captured documents he was playing WMD con to deter Iran.

The problem here was that Russia and France were sending him signals that military action against him could be stopped through UN action (indeed had even been attempting to remove the sanctions), and as Bush Sr. did not remove Saddam in the early 90s (nor should he have), the Clinton Administration and UN were completely ineffective at getting a weapons inspection regime back into place after Desert Fox, Saddam would have reason to believe no US President would want to occupy Iraq.

He was just playing with the wrong man when it came to Bush.

As to Iran, their nuclear program had to have been in progress even under the Clinton Administration, one that did attempt diplomacy to reach out to Iranian moderates. Remember it is really the clerics who are in control of that country, not really the elected officials.

As Libya proved post invasion of Iraq, fear of serious and real military response is also a necessary tool when in negotiation in the Islamic world.

[freediver]

Remember it is really the clerics who are in control of that country, not really the elected officials.

Can you clarify that for me? How does their democracy work? An Iranian cabbie tried to explain to me once how they weren't really democractic. When he started going on about how we aren't either because corporations control everything, I stopped listening.

[helian]

Remember it is really the clerics who are in control of that country, not really the elected officials.

Can you clarify that for me? How does their democracy work? An Iranian cabbie tried to explain to me once how they weren't really democractic. When he started going on about how we aren't either because corporations control everything, I stopped listening.

The Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's role is similar to that of Head of State. The elected President is the Head of government. The chief commander of the armed forces is the Supreme Leader.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Leader_of_Iran

[JW Frogen]

Remember it is really the clerics who are in control of that country, not really the elected officials.

Can you clarify that for me? How does their democracy work? An Iranian cabbie tried to explain to me once how they weren't really democractic. When he started going on about how we aren't either because corporations control everything, I stopped listening.

The Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's role is similar to that of Head of State. The elected President is the Head of government. The chief commander of the armed forces is the Supreme Leader.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Leader_of_Iran

If you buy that I have one million dollars in an Iranian banks account I wish to transfer to your account if you will only send me the details.

The clerics hold all veto power over every aspect of Iranian life.

[Guest]

Remember it is really the clerics who are in control of that country, not really the elected officials.

Can you clarify that for me? How does their democracy work? An Iranian cabbie tried to explain to me once how they weren't really democractic. When he started going on about how we aren't either because corporations control everything, I stopped listening.

The Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's role is similar to that of Head of State. The elected President is the Head of government. The chief commander of the armed forces is the Supreme Leader.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Leader_of_Iran

If you buy that I have one million dollars in an Iranian banks account I wish to transfer to your account if you will only send me the details.

The clerics hold all veto power over every aspect of Iranian life.

What's not to believe? Do you understand the roles and the relationship between a head of state and head of government? If you are American, it may not obvious to you as the roles of Head of state and head of government are combined into a single role - the President.