Reply With Quote
Even with $70 oil, the economy in Iran is garbage. All the money goes into government-run industries run by a small cabal of mullah cronies.
Private businesses run by everyday Iranians are being run into the ground.
"You want this government to fall?"
The collapse of oil prices in the mid/late 80s as the world adjusted its consumption to the Iranian oil shock caused the loss of many $Bs of hard currency for the Russians, who could no longer finance their military operations in Afghanistan and in the Red bloc.
In comparison, $70+ oil is pumping $4B/month into Iran, which the mullahs use to buy the support of the people with subsidies for damn near everything (gasoline at 34 cents/gallon, bread, etc, etc, etc).
If we could get the price of oil down significantly, Iran would not have the suplus $Bs to buy their poplulace's support and finance all kinds of terrorism. btw, it would also cut the revenues to Russia, not exactly our closest ally.
Even with $70 oil, the economy in Iran is garbage. All the money goes into government-run industries run by a small cabal of mullah cronies.
Private businesses run by everyday Iranians are being run into the ground.
"Even with $70 oil, the economy in Iran is garbage"
exactly, with oil at 50 or less, the garbage will become evident, the subsidies will be become unsustainable, and Iran ripe for another revolution, that might be more friendly, and at least it would keep Iran pre-occupied internally vs now.
"Really, Really Hard", IMO would mean a massive strike, as someone here mentioned (1 million plus troops), a draft; real sacrifice at home - essentially if we go at Iran, we have to be prepared to go all the way at Iran & everybody else that steps into the fray at that point (WWIII).
Diplomacy could work as you define it; be nice, let the leadership be shown for what they are (war mongering, sabre rattling, self-interested "islamafascists") - but time is of the essence; with reports that Iran could have nukes a year from now (of course if the climate in the adminstration is as your author suggests, those reports might just be convenient). Your scenario doesn't seem to have time to come to fruition.
Are you confident that Ackmadenajad (sp) won't just blow the crap out of Israel 25 minutes after that sucker is operational? I think he might - based on what he is saying. Unfortunately you cannot reason with the unreasonable (got that out of a parenting-help book).
Maybe war between the West & the Islamic Jihadists is simply inevitible, and we ought to get on with it. (depressing, but reading this and a couple of other threads, as well as watching the news, one could easily come to that conclusion)
Don't ask yourself what you think Ahmadinejad will do. He doesn't have the authority to launch any attack.
Do a little research on Ali Khameini and ask yourself what you think his endgame is.
You've got no problems calling Bush a liar, but can't seem to make the connection between a married man lying under oath about an affair. Don't they teach you anything in junior high croutons, or are you in the class that is still learning to color inside the lines?
*Sigh*
OK, 101A, in the future, just avoid mentioning Clinton at all, lest threads self-hijack.
Iran wants to be the main player in the ME. They don't want to be blown to oblivion, which is what would happen if they dropped a nuclear bomb on Israel (or the U.S.). So it's against their interests to do that.
But to be the big player, they have to earn their cred by showing they can stand up to the US, and to do that they're playing a cat and mouse game to see just how far they can push us, knowing that we're militarily strapped in Iraq, knowing that our economy is so oil-dependent. So they have more room to play this game, because there's not a whole heck of a lot we can do without causing harm to ourselves by outright attacking them and they know it.
Plus they've got Russia supporting them, and China is one of their biggest customers. You think China's gonna let anything happen to one of their main supply lines?
Already came to that conclusion. Now doing my homework you assigned...
I can't decide whether Iran's endgame is a suicidal attack on Israel, or regional hegemony. Rational thought would dictate the latter, but how can I be sure I can depend upon Muslim fundamentalists to use rational thought when in the U.S., far less wacky Christian fundamentalists so obviously do not.
If Iran is just aiming for deterrence, then an attack is the last thing we want to do. Our aim should be to help rot out the Islamic Republic from underneath, so that the fervently pro-America Iranian people gain self-determination. At worst, long-term we'd have another France.
That would still be a net loss to us, in my opinion.
Actually it does. We know MUCH more about Irans nuclear capabilities, due to IAEA inspections. We also know that the pace of progress is fairly slow. They have taken a LONG time to get from nothing to where they are now and will take a similar time to get a working bomb. Time is on our side.Diplomacy could work as you define it; be nice, let the leadership be shown for what they are (war mongering, sabre rattling, self-interested "islamafascists") - but time is of the essence; with reports that Iran could have nukes a year from now (of course if the climate in the adminstration is as your author suggests, those reports might just be convenient). Your scenario doesn't seem to have time to come to fruition.
It will NOT be a year from now or even two years, barring a massive ramp up.
Amedinijhad is not *the* Iranian government. As much as he would like to do something there are other factors that would prevent such usage, even IF they had a bomb.Are you confident that Ackmadenajad (sp) won't just blow the crap out of Israel 25 minutes after that sucker is operational? I think he might - based on what he is saying. Unfortunately you cannot reason with the unreasonable (got that out of a parenting-help book).
It is not exactly West versus Islam. Remember that as China and India get more into global integration, they would have more to lose from "rogue" nations as well.Maybe war between the West & the Islamic Jihadists is simply inevitible, and we ought to get on with it. (depressing, but reading this and a couple of other threads, as well as watching the news, one could easily come to that conclusion)
Imagine a war fought between Iran on one side, the US, China, and India on the other.
You want a million troops, you got it easily.
Islam or even radical Islam isn't even the enemy.
Nationalism is. If radical Islam gives satisfaction to nationalist forces that other methods haven't, then that is what the "man on the street" will turn to.
Biography of Ali Khameini (from his "Supreme Leader" Website
Dude wants to rule the world, that we're in the middle of Islamic Revolution. We are "the enemy", and as far as I can tell, regardless of who is in power here, we are always, "the enemy". Doesn't talk about negotiating; just says we're all (yes, you too Boutons and Dan) materialistic and evil (specifically mentions how evil it is to NOT base your government on religion). Doesn't really hate us, so much as considers us sub-Islam; and ultimately, doomed to fall to the revolution.
Based on looking at his website, and understanding his goals, his is EXACTLY trying to weaken our reputation throughout the world, stretch us thin, let us argue ourselves silly (which he also thinks is funny as ) and bide himself time (patience is a big deal with this guy), until he can fulfill his destiny and keep the Islamic Revolution going and growing.
Diplomacy may work in the short term, if it suits his goals; otherwise if we make some kind of overture like Random Guy is suggesting, he'll probably just fund some terrorist attrocity, let us figure out he did it, claim innocence and a framing by the US ( if most people in the world now believe Bush had some hand in 9/11 - he certainly could blame lesser things on us), and put our leaders in a position of either continuing to do business with someone who is being a terrorist and flaunting it, or again, being right back where we are now.
After reading HIS OWN website; we need to start building up and getting ready to hit this guy: HARD. He CANNOT get a bomb.
Here's the Supreme Leaders quote about the recent war between Hezbollah & Israel:
Please note: the only country mentioned by name is ours, and listed even before "Zionist Regime".Your wronged jihad disclosed the enemy and unveiled its real face. The callous carnage of civilian people, shedding blood of innocent children and defenseless women, the Qana incident and many similar examples, demolishing thousands of houses and displacing thousands of families, destroying infrastructure in a significant part of Lebanon, and similar atrocities unveiled the real face of the American authorities and certain western states as well as the ugly and hateful face of the Zionist regime.
Honestly, I think the Israelis shot themselves in the foot when they used cluster bombs.
Cluster bombs are used against massed troop formations, not guerillas.
Dumbasses.
The iranian government is not loved by its people. Western culture is.
The hardliners of 1979 are dying off as surely as the Chinese hardliners of 1949 did and are.
Once again, time is on our side.
Iran can have all the bombs they can build in the limited amount of time this government has left.
All we have to do is not give them incentive to accelerate development, and weaken their government by actually dealing with it.
You have, by far, overestimated the threat posed by Iran to the US, just as Bush did Iraq.
It's actually a beutiful strategy Iran is using; they just sit back & wait for us or Israel to do something, anything dumb; they jump on that work their own people into a frenzy, and let our media (and Boutons) beat the crap out of whoever on "our" side made the error.
Then the Iranians talk an little sh!, and start waiting again...
I think you might be underestimating a dictator's ability to hold onto power. He controls the military, the media, and the government. If it's in his best interest to foment dislike for the United States, regardless of how the US is actually behaving, he will.
I don't think Iran poses a threat to the US right now, but they are shrewdly building alliances around the world.
Hate to bring up a WWII analogy (get chastised for it), but Hitler got less than 40% of the vote. His was not a particularly popular position (especially with those over 30) in Germany. Didn't stop him
Good take, Stout.If Iran is just aiming for deterrence, then an attack is the last thing we want to do. Our aim should be to help rot out the Islamic Republic from underneath, so that the fervently pro-America Iranian people gain self-determination. At worst, long-term we'd have another France.
I still don't think that us or Israel will do anything until they reach of a point of no return, and then it will be the Israelis doing the dirty work.
Since the Iranian people are completely oppressed by their government it seems the best course of action at this point is to work behind the scenes to empower the people to take on their government. The administrations main stance should be one of - "Iranian people - we are not against you. We would like to help you end the years of oppression you have been under." - or something to that effect. If the Iranians can secretly fund and fuel terrorists what's stopping us from secretly funding and fueling an uprising in Iran? I don't really know if this is completely feasible, and the downside is that there is no guarantee that a successful revolt would lead to a different Iran that is US friendly. Just like fueling Osama and the Afghans in the 80's against the Solviets solved one problem but led to another with the empowerment of Osama and his sect.
"The hardliners of 1979 are dying off"
yes, but the current president is young and comes right from the hardest of the hard-lining faction.
It's about power, and there will be plenty of young guys willing to step up and grab the power.
Oil at $35 barrell would cut Iran's monthly mischief-making revenue from $4B to $2B.
Last edited by boutons_; 09-01-2006 at 10:17 PM.
No worries. I'm sure the Iranian people will greet us as liberators.
Rational thought would also dictate that you have better intelligence sources than a guy named Curveball before you go invading a country under the premise of WMDs or links to Al-Queda (whatever that is), but that's not the way PNAC saw it then or sees Iran now.
As things stand now, we are one serious terrorists strike from martial law and WW3, perhaps the closes we've been to someone actually using a mega-ton nuclear explosive in war-time since the Cuban missile crisis, and the crazy thing is, it maybe the U.S. that uses it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
