Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Israeli PM Netanyahu wants the U.S. to identify a "red line" regarding Iran's nuclear program. I suppose this is intended to be seen as an attempt at diplomacy, but in reality it is more like a trap. Its purpose is twofold: 1. an attempt to secure U.S. assistance if Israel should initiate military action, 2. attempt to readily shift blame to Iran by invoking the "red line crossing" as a de facto act of war, thus an attempt to mitigate future criticism that Israel (and the U.S.) is acting as the aggressor.
The U.S. should not paint itself into a corner by agreeing to such a reckless proposal. Getting dragged into a war with Iran would be an enormous burden for the U.S. It would enflame anti-U.S. sentiment, thus fueling terrorism recruitment. It would directly consume vast U.S. wealth. It would crash the world economy, thus indirectly consuming more wealth. It would cost many U.S. lives. It would also cost many Iranian lives - and many (maybe most) Iranians themselves are rational people who do not want to be engulfed in war with the U.S. or anyone else.
The Israeli's are misjudging the the Iranian nuclear threat. While the Iranian government issues much heated anti-Israeli rhetoric and supports anti-Israeli groups there is a strong element of rationality and restraint that operates behind the scences; there are significant movements toward a more private and capitalistic society. There is not a strong case to be made that Iran intends to utilize nuclear weapons for use during a "first strike". The country is not run or populated by fundamentally backward people who are natural complete allies for terrorists like al-qaida or the Taliban, but threatening rhetoric from the U.S. (since we have a history of directly and indirectly intervening in their country, e.g., 1953 coup, the Iran/Iraq war) is enough to inspire Iran to develop such relationships as a defensive strategy. At worst, Iran, if left to itself, has more in common with the Societ Union - which we can now say sought to avoid nuclear conflict, and obviously did not start one despite possessing many such weapons - than with groups like the Taliban. At best, it will continue to slowly drift toward more market oriented society and problems related to freedom and justice will be internally resolved.
The U.S. needs to continue distancing itself from the wreckage of colonialism (Iranian experience with UK colonial aspirations and the associated U.S. involvement should not be discounted) and Cold War hostilities. Troubles with a state like Iran can eventually be resolved peacefully - because they are not in the same class as North Korea or a terrorist group - but not if we engage in warmongering.
We should not let the Israeli association (and aggression) drag us into yet further Persian/Arab/Middle Eastern turmoil that will solve no problems, here or there, and serve only to cause massive death, destabilize the world, and result in unpredictable consequences.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
NO! There is nothing that gives us the right to dictate anything to Iran.
Amercan voters should be issuing a 'red-line' to Washington that we will no longer tolerate lame attempts to police the world and re-make it to our liking.
I agree with Burdell and the OP. We have no right and very little reason to try and dictate ANYTHING to IRAN. We should remove any and all restrictions on trade with this country and treat them like any other country in the region.
It is past time that we stopped letting Israeli PM Netanyahu dictate our policy in the Middle East. After they have openly attacked our ships and other intelligence assets as well as some civilians (running someone over with a bulldozed is barbaric and pathetic) without any sign of remorse we should reevaluate just who are our enemies in the region. Iran is NOT one of them.
filihok also makes a good point. The US has never attacked any country armed with nuclear weapons. The safest thing Iran could do is make, or buy, as many as they can. I would not trust US intelligence services to know if they still do not have weapons. That is not a bet I think we should make.
I agree with Burdell and the OP. We have no right and very little reason to try and dictate ANYTHING to IRAN. We should remove any and all restrictions on trade with this country and treat them like any other country in the region.
It is past time that we stopped letting Israeli PM Netanyahu dictate our policy in the Middle East. After they have openly attacked our ships and other intelligence assets as well as some civilians (running someone over with a bulldozed is barbaric and pathetic) without any sign of remorse we should reevaluate just who are our enemies in the region. Iran is NOT one of them.
filihok also makes a good point. The US has never attacked any country armed with nuclear weapons. The safest thing Iran could do is make, or buy, as many as they can. I would not trust US intelligence services to know if they still do not have weapons. That is not a bet I think we should make.
Good post, New England common sense.
I wish we could bottle it and send it to my fellow white males in Dixie and the militia states.
Israeli PM Netanyahu wants the U.S. to identify a "red line" regarding Iran's nuclear program.
Why?
What so evil about a nuclear reactor powering desalinization plants so that irrigation projects can bring water to the Iranian Plateau so that it can be developed for agriculture, creating jobs that will reduce Iran's perennial 20% unemployment and shifting Iran from a net-importer of food to a net-exporter of food, which will reduce food prices globally...even for Americans?
What is so evil about using a nuclear reactor to provide electricity so that Iran can shut down its oil-fired and natural gas-fired power plants, diverting more oil and gas to the world market to increase supply and reduce prices globally....even for Americans?
Did you read the IAEA report? Did you understand it? What did the IAEA say? They said Iran was enriching uranium to 20% HEU.
So what's the problem?
That's irrefutable proof that Iran is not attempting to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons.
Everyone can suck on reality for a while.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clint.
I suppose this is intended to be seen as an attempt at diplomacy, but in reality it is more like a trap. Its purpose is twofold: 1. an attempt to secure U.S. assistance if Israel should initiate military action, 2. attempt to readily shift blame to Iran by invoking the "red line crossing" as a de facto act of war, thus an attempt to mitigate future criticism that Israel (and the U.S.) is acting as the aggressor.
Your analysis fails because Israel cannot attack Iran.
The facts are:
1] The IAEA proves Iran is not attempting to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons; and
2] Nuclear reactors are not necessary to produce nuclear weapons.
3] The only viable target within possible range of Israeli strike aircraft is the dual-reactor complex at Bushwehr, and even that would require in-flight refueling over the Persian Gulf either before the attack or immediately afterward.
Since destroying the dual-reactors at Bushwehr has ZERO impact on any alleged Iranian nuclear weapons program, why do it?
The only reason would be to punish Iran for exercising self-determination and freedom of choice with respect to international trade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clint.
The Israeli's are misjudging the the Iranian nuclear threat. While the Iranian government issues much heated anti-Israeli rhetoric and supports anti-Israeli groups there is a strong element of rationality and restraint that operates behind the scences; there are significant movements toward a more private and capitalistic society. There is not a strong case to be made that Iran intends to utilize nuclear weapons for use during a "first strike". The country is not run or populated by fundamentally backward people who are natural complete allies for terrorists like al-qaida or the Taliban, but threatening rhetoric from the U.S. (since we have a history of directly and indirectly intervening in their country, e.g., 1953 coup, the Iran/Iraq war) is enough to inspire Iran to develop such relationships as a defensive strategy. At worst, Iran, if left to itself, has more in common with the Societ Union - which we can now say sought to avoid nuclear conflict, and obviously did not start one despite possessing many such weapons - than with groups like the Taliban. At best, it will continue to slowly drift toward more market oriented society and problems related to freedom and justice will be internally resolved.
Okay, that's very good analysis.
The only problem is that the Israeli's are not misjudging the alleged Iranian nuclear threat.
Like the US, the Israelis are counting on the alleged Iranian nuclear threat to instill fear in the American people getting that knee-jerking going.
There are two things the United States hates more than anything in the world, and those two things are self-determination and freedom of choice. Freedom for me, but not for thee.
BRIC (Brasil, Russia, India & China) support freedom of choice. They believe that every country should be able to exercise self-determination and the freedom to choose their trade currency. If a country chooses US Dollars, fine. If a country chooses Euros or Rubles, that's fine, too. If a country wants to trade in US Dollars and Euros, then so be it. If a country wants to trade in gold or in basket currencies of US Dollars, Rubles, Euros, Yuan and Swiss Francs, then that's the way it should be.
And that is what this is all about: the self-determination and freedom of choice for each country to choose the currency or currencies in which it wants to trade.
Of the 190+ countries on Earth, which countries are "harmed" (snicker) by Freedom of Choice?
Only three:
US
USrael
Saudi America
There isn't anything the US can do about China or Russia or Europe, but the US can bully, threaten and intimidate small countries, like Iraq, Libya, Iran and others. Once a country abandons the US Dollar, the US is powerless to interfere in that country's economic, political and social affairs -- at least by using economic might.
Anyway, the US is totally distraught by the Kish Island Exchange and will continue to froth at the mouth it until falls over backwards.
What so evil about a nuclear reactor powering desalinization plants so that irrigation projects can bring water to the Iranian Plateau so that it can be developed for agriculture, creating jobs that will reduce Iran's perennial 20% unemployment and shifting Iran from a net-importer of food to a net-exporter of food, which will reduce food prices globally...even for Americans?
What is so evil about using a nuclear reactor to provide electricity so that Iran can shut down its oil-fired and natural gas-fired power plants, diverting more oil and gas to the world market to increase supply and reduce prices globally....even for Americans?
Did you read the IAEA report? Did you understand it? What did the IAEA say? They said Iran was enriching uranium to 20% HEU.
So what's the problem?
That's irrefutable proof that Iran is not attempting to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons.
Everyone can suck on reality for a while.
I never said I agreed with Netanyahu, and I think it's pretty apparent from the rest of my post that I don't. I just used that news report as a way to introduce the thread topic.
Quote:
Your analysis fails because Israel cannot attack Iran.
The facts are:
1] The IAEA proves Iran is not attempting to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons; and
2] Nuclear reactors are not necessary to produce nuclear weapons.
3] The only viable target within possible range of Israeli strike aircraft is the dual-reactor complex at Bushwehr, and even that would require in-flight refueling over the Persian Gulf either before the attack or immediately afterward.
Since destroying the dual-reactors at Bushwehr has ZERO impact on any alleged Iranian nuclear weapons program, why do it?
The only reason would be to punish Iran for exercising self-determination and freedom of choice with respect to international trade.
My thinking for calling it a trap and a way to justify an attack is because Israel/U.S. could or would arbitrarily define "red line" in such a way that Iran would cross it; the criteria used to determine the so-called red line would likely be written in such a way that they expect Iran to cross it. I think it's a very bad idea. ...At least, I suppose that's what you meant by "Israel cannot attack Iran" (as in, cannot ethically justify) and not that they literally can't attack Iran.
We've seen the same line over and over: country x is pursuing enrichment technology to make weapons, we can't allow this to happen, it will be doomsday, etc., etc. We saw it with North Korea, with Pakistan, etc. It's propaganda, and high time that the U.S. stop being so paranoid reactionary because it's counterproductive and brings no good.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher
Good post, New England common sense.
I wish we could bottle it and send it to my fellow white males in Dixie and the militia states.
Dixie?
We seem to hear an awful lot of drum beating from the guy from Michigan or Massachusetts or New Hampshire or wherever he's cliaming as home this week
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
